Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER,in the Chair.

PROLETARIAN SCHOOLS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I beg to present a numerously signed petition from members of the National Citizens' Union at Hythe and Folkestone protesting against seditious teaching in Communist and Proletarian schools and urging Parliament to introduce legislation to prevent it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You see visions of your en's as you dauner doun there.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Torquay Corporation Bill (by Order), Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY OFFICERS (HOUSING).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the question of the cost of housing entailed upon officers of the Army in India is under consideration; and whether steps are being taken to provide officers with free quarters or what is proposed to be done in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): My hon. and gallant Friend was informed of the Government of India's policy on this subject on 7th March of last year. The provision of free quarters has not been under consideration. In accordance with the recommendations of the Esher Committee, rent for Government quarters is assessed at not more than 10 per cent. of pay in the case of married officers and not
more than 5 per cent. in the case of single officers.

Sir C. YATE: What did the Esher Committee recommend?

Earl WINTERTON: The recommendation of the Esher Committee has been carried out.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is the Noble Lord aware of the enormous rise in rents of recent years?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, that has been taken into account in coming to the decision which has been come to.

Sir C. YATE: Will not the Government consider the question now, as it is a very important matter?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that it Ns ill not be possible in the present state of financial stringency to give improved terms. The terms which have been carried on are those which have been recommended by the Esher Committee.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (PASSAGES).

Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, with reference to his reply of the 4th December, 1922, whether the correspondence with the Government of India regarding the possibility of alleviating the burden imposed on Government officials in India by the present high cost of passages to and from India has been concluded and whether he can now give the definite information on the subject then promised?

Earl WINTERTON: The correspondence referred to has not yet been concluded. I hope to give my hon. and gallant Friend further information very shortly.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what has been the total additional annual administrative expenditure occasioned by the Montagu reforms in the government of India as compared with the previous administration by the Indian Civil Service?

Earl WINTERTON: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the full statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of
30th June last, which showed an annual extra expenditure of 45 lakhs of Rupees. I have no doubt that this increase has been, and is being, reduced in consequence of retrenchment. As, however, the preparation of this Return is a lengthy and costly process, I do not propose, unless my hon. Friend presses for it, to ask for a revised statement at this stage.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does my Noble Friend think, from the information at his disposal, that the people of India are happier or more contented by reason of this large additional expenditure?

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Does this refer only to the Government of India, or also to the Provincial Governments?

Earl WINTERTON: The Return refers to general expenditure, Provincial and Government of India. The question of my hon. Friend hardly seems to arise out of the original question.

PUBLIC SERVICES (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the debates in the Indian legislatures on 25th January, in which strong disapproval was shown to the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission upon the services in India; whether the Government of India have approved of the appointment of the Commission; and whether it is still his intention to carry out the proposal?

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is still of opinion that another Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the public services of India; whether he has consulted the opinion of the governors of the Indian provinces on the proposal, and has given full weight to the views of the elected representatives of India on the project; and, if he proposes to carry out his intention, will he first of all give the House of Commons an opportunity of debating the matter?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir, I have read the Debates referred to. The appointment of a Royal Commission is a matter for His Majesty's Government who are not prepared to reconsider their decision.

MOPLAH REBELLION.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of Moplahs transported to the Andaman Islands in consequence of rebellion: and whether these prisoners were tried by court-martial or by the ordinary criminal courts?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not received any figures, but will inquire.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. GILBERT: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what import duties are now imposed in India on British-manufactured goods; whether any export duties are imposed on Indian-manufactured goods exported from India; and, if so, on what goods and what are the duties?

Earl WINTERTON: The general rate of Customs duty on goods, manufactured and unmanufactured, British or foreign, imported into India is 15 per cent.ad valorem, but there arc numerous exceptions to this general rate. The only Indian-manufactured goods on which a Customs export duty is imposed are jute manufactures. The rates are Rs. 20 per ton on sacking (cloth, bags, twist, yarn, rope, and twine), and Rs. 32 per ton on Hessians and all other descriptions of jute manufactures not otherwise specified. A full list of the Customs duties leviable in India is contained in the Indian Tariff Schedules of which I will send a copy to the hon. Member, but certain small alterations to the rates there shown are proposed in the Finance Bill now before the Indian Legislature.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PRICES, CUMBERLAND.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Cumberland County Council has entered into a contract for the provision of coal for Frizington Council school at 39s. 6d. per ton, and that the average price of coal at the pit top is stated officially to be 16s. 9½d. per ton; and will he, in the interests of economy, cause inquiry to be made as to how the difference between the price at the pit top and that charged for delivery at the school, namely, £1 3s. 9½d. per ton, was disbursed?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): The hon. Member apparently bases his question on a comparison between the average pit head price of all qualities of coal in the month of November, 1922, and the retail price of a particular quality of coal at some other time. I do not see how any inference can be drawn from such a comparison.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is only about a shilling a ton difference between screened and unscreened coat at the pits mouth?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: No.

Mr. DUFFY: Is he aware that the coal used at the Council school is local coal?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, that is probably the case.

Mr. DUFFY: Then can the latter part of my question be answered?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Obviously I cannot explain the whole local conditions. The hon. Member's comparison is a comparison of two totally different things.

COKE.

Mr. BRIANT: 10.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the occupation of the Ruhr area by the French Army has led to a diversion of the Durham foundry coke to Germany and France, to a limitation of the supply to British manufacturers, and to an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in price; and if, in view of the necessity of assisting the recovery of British trade, he will take steps to secure a sufficient supply of coke for British manufacturers?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware that there has recently been a sharp increase in the demand far metallurgical coke and that home and export prices have risen by about 25 per cent. and 100 per cent. respectively over the last six weeks. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on the 22nd February to the hon. Member for Workington. There is every indication that coke manufacturers are fully alive to the necessity of meeting the inland demand.

EXPORTS

Mr. GILBERT: 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there has recently been any increase of the export of British coal; how much increased quantities have been exported to Germany; and can he give any comparative figures of exports between this year's and last year's trade?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing for each month from January. 1922 to February, 1923 inclusive the total quantity of British coal exported and the quantity exported to German ports.

Following is the statement promised:

Statement showing the Quantity of Coal exported from the United Kingdom for each month from January, 1922 to (a) all destinations and (b) German ports.

Month
All Destinations
Germany.


1922.
Tons.
Tons.


January
4,020,935
247,313


February
4,014,334
359,889


March
5,201,235
467,718


April
4,096,578
256,618


May
5,057,230
601,473


June
4,793,649
889,644


July
5,063,763
1,133,402


August
6,146,121
1,165,228


September
7,082,729
1,060,801


October
6,196,411
918,598


November
6,570,758
735,153


December
5,954,642
509,769


1923.




January
5,611,670
521,854


February
5,902,630
1,000,097

STATISTICS.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 54.
asked the Prime Minister, whether he will, in future inquiries into the situation in the coal mining industry, ask for the figures of the Miners' Federation in addition to those supplied by the Coal Owners' Association?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I cannot undertake to ask for figures from either side, but I shall be glad to use any figures that the Miners' Federation care to send me, provided that they are supplied on the same conditions as were the wages figures
recently given me by the Mining Association, that is to say, that if they are not accepted by the other side, they will be open to investigation and audit. I did not ask for these figures; they were supplied to me voluntarily.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use ofex parte statistics from the coalowners has created a bad impression among the miners, and will he take steps to remove that impression?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the figures are accurate they should not have created a bad impression, and they are open to audit by the representatives of the Miners' Federation.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even on that day they were challenged and found to be incorrect from beginning to end?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I was not aware of that statement.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of the Miners' Federation did contest the accuracy of the figures?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but he did not take any opportunity of checking them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that, when the figures had been rejected as inaccurate, the. Miners' Federation sought to have an inquiry into both parties' figures for the purpose of accuracy?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister now that the books of the coal-owners will be open to audit by anyone appointed by the Miners' Federation?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH TRADE.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 19 and 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he is aware that an order for 400 coils of wire, placed on 10th January last in Germany, is now ready
for shipment; that, owing to the conflict between the French and Belgian Governments and the German Government, delivery is impossible; if he will demand an instant removal of this restrictions upon international trade;
(2) if he is aware that 500 kegs of wire nails ordered on 3rd January last were despatched from German works on 26th January last for shipment from Hamburg; that all trace has been lost of the goods; and that they are held upen route by the French authorities: and if he will demand the instant release of the goods and a refund of all charges incurred in consequence of this interference with international trade?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Without fuller particulars it is impossible to give any information in regard to these consignments. But in these and in similar cases, if full details are supplied, every endeavour will be made to facilitate the movement of the goods.

Mr. FRANK GRAY: Has any success attended the efforts of previous cases, details of which have been brought to your notice?

Mr. McNEILL: Negotiations are going on. I cannot say more than that.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware, in regard to the Ruhr occupation, whether the French and Belgian commanders, acting in conjunction with the newly installed French customs house authorities, have forbidden the discharge of Rhine lighters and insist. upon French customs house formalities being complied with, namely, that the ore-carrying lighters shall be entered at the French customs house and that the receivers of the cargo shall pay import duty as required by the French and Belgian authorities; that German receivers have declined to do this, in view of the fact that the German Government have threatened to treat them as traitors to their country if they are prepared to do so; that, since the German works look on the situation as a case offorce majeure, they can no longer take delivery of or pay for cargoes on board of steamers which have already been chartered; and whether, seeing that the Rhine Convention of 1868, referred to in
the Peace Treaty under Article 354, guarantees to all countries free and unhindered navigation on the Rhine and Rhine ports, discharging places included, he will say what steps the Government: propose to take in order to protect the interests of British shippers, both from this country and other British Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect that the French and Belgian Governments have, in connection with the import and export duties imposed by them in the occupied territories, instituted a general prohibition of the discharge of lighters on the Rhine, or that they have insisted on ore-carrying lighters being entered at the French Custom House. Goods carried in such lighters are, however, presumably liable to the appropriate customs duties fixed by the French and Belgian Governments before entering the territories now occupied by those Governments, and the attitude of the German receivers is understood to be generally as stated by my hon. Friend.
While the Mannheim Convention prohibits the imposition of navigation dues, it does not relieve traders from paying customs dues. As to the steps which His Majesty's Government propose to take to protect the interests of British shippers, I am unable to add anything to statements already published to the effect that if British traders will forward to the Board of Trade, or to the British High Commissioner at Coblenz, full particulars of the cases in which difficulty is experienced, every effort will be made to assist them.

Sir N. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, were the policy of the French insisted upon, it would result in the closing down of many ore mines within the British Dominions, with the result that some thousands of men would be thrown out of employment?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am aware of that fact.

Mr. LEACH: 59.
asked the Prime Minister if he has received complaints from British traders that since the French occupation of the Ruhr they have been asked to pay a 10 per cent.ad valorem duty on their goods to the French authorities, after meeting all the. German duties and before such goods
could be released; and if he will cause representations to be made to the French Government on the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would be good enough to put his question down again as I am in communication with His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz with regard to this matter, and I have not yet received his reply?

Captain W. BENN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make immediate representations to the French and Belgian Governments to the effect that all goods, both for export from and import into the occupied territories, at present ready for shipment in transit, or contracted for which are British owned or for British order should. be allowed to enter or leave the occupied territories on licences issued by the German authorities paying dues levied in accordance with the scales already laid down by the German Customs?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government have been in constant communication with our representative on the Rhineland High Commission with a view to arrangements for facilitating British trade, and it is hoped that such arrangements will shortly be successfully concluded. We are communicating today with the High Commissioner in regard to the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Captain BENN: Is it not a fact that this same suggestion was put some days ago by the British Chamber of Commerce in Cologne to the Foreign Office, has no action between taken, and are not British traders daily suffering severe losses?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that British traders must be suffering losses, hut, as regards goods in transit, I think it, necessary to communicate with the High Commissioner in order to get to know what are the facts.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Is it not a fact that the steamship "Badenia" was stopped on the high seas in transit from Cologne to Great Britain, and has the right hon. Gentleman had any representations made to him on that point?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, none.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give an answer to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, if we have had the reply.

RHINELAND RAILWAYS.

Captain BENN: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state precisely the nature of the Franco-Belgian administration of the Rhineland railways; what personnel will be engaged on the railways; who will decide the amount and character of the traffic; into what fund surplus receipts will be paid; and whether he will state precisely how far these arrangements affect the railways running through the British-occupied zone?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that His Majesty's Government are not in a position to furnish these particulars.

Captain BENN: Does it mean that the House of Commons is not to have this information?

Mr. McNEILL: I should not like to say that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for very voluminous particulars on an immense number of details which it would involve an immense amount of work to obtain, and I really do not know that there is a staff on the spot which could supply it, without requiring a considerable amount of notice.

Captain BENN: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this control of the railways in the occupied territory is a very vital matter for British interests, and is not the House of Commons entitled to have particulars from our representative?

Mr. McNEILL: That. I cannot say, but it is impossible to give those particulars at the very short notice the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given. I quite realise it is a vital matter.

Captain BENN: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer

Mr. McNEILL: I will communicate privately with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

REICHSBANK MONEY (SEIZURE).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a posi-
tion to give the House information as to the recent seizure by the French of German Reichsbank money intended for the British zone; and if he will state what steps, if any, the Government are taking in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: Of the sum seized by the French, half was intended for the Cologne branch of the Reichsbank, and of that a certain proportion would have been distributed to sub-branches outside the British zone. No part was destined for the payment of the British Army of Occupation. His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz is at present satisfied with the situation, and His Majesty's Government do not propose, therefore, to take any action in this matter.

BRITISH TROOPS (PARCELS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent developments in the area outside the British occupied zone on the Rhine, he is able to assure the House that every effort is being made to expedite the passage of British goods intended for the British forces and that there is no unnecessary delay in the delivery of these goods?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. No difficulty is being experienced in getting military stores through to Cologne, and I am aware of no difficulties in regard to private consignments to the troops.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May we take it the report during the week-end is not correct, that the French were holding up parcels?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: We consulted the Post Office and have been informed that they experienced no trouble with parcels. The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes have had no trouble and we can trace no trouble anywhere.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. and gallant Member speaking with regard to the ordinary trader or merely in connection with war stores?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The question is entirely with regard to military stores. Questions about trade should obviously be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Cannot the same facilities be given to British trade?

BRITISH TROOPS (PAYMENT).

Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: 96.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the recent isolation of the area of British occupation on the Rhine and the consequent difficulty of obtaining paper marks, he will now take steps to allay the sense of grievance caused to our troops on the Rhine by their payment in an unstable foreign paper currency?

Captain KING: My right hon. Friend does not anticipate any difficulty in obtaining marks from the German Government for British requirements in the occupied area; and he is not prepared to alter the present system of paying the troops locally in local currency. He is considering with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible to adjust the official rate of exchange more rapidly.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman considered whether it is legal to pay distant soldiers in a foreign currency, especially when the rate paid is not equal to the commercial rate in that currency?

Mr. JARRETT: Is it not a fact that officers of the Rhine Army are paid in sterling, and is there any real reason why the men should not be so paid?

Captain KING: My hon. Friend has all these points in mind, and has been considering them.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: In view of the unsatisfactory answer received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to give notice I will raise this matter on the adjournment of the House on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MINERS.

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there has recently been any decrease in the unemployment of miners in Great Britain; and can he give any comparative figures of the present year and a year ago?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. According to the figures of the Ministry of Labour, which are based on unemployment books lodged at the Employment Exchanges, there were 55,717 workpeople
in the coal mining industry totally unemployed at the 22nd January, 1923, as compared with 118,143 at the 31st January, 1922. The number in employment in the mining industry is, however, now actually greater by about 40,000 than the maximum number employed before the War.

GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. HURD: 61.
asked the Prime Minister what decision has been come to as to an extension of the period of operations of the Unemployment Grants Committee in view of the continuance of abnormal unemployment beyond the winter season, as for instance in the mining districts of Somerset?

The PRIME MINISTER: As was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the Debate on the Vote on Account, the Unemployment Grants Committee are continuing their operations, and have authority to sanction further schemes to a considerable sum. The Cabinet Committee on Unemployment have under constant consideration the question of any further action which can be taken.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that the Unemployment Grants Committee will now consider new schemes in view of the continuance of unemployment?

The PRIME MINISTER: They are considering them.

UNCOVENANTED BENEFIT.

Mr. BATEY: 81.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployment committees in the County of Durham, in arriving at the means of an unmarried unemployed miner, is reckoning the relief money paid by the Durham Miners' Association to such unemployed miners; whether he is aware that such relief money is obtained by levies paid by the miners who are in employment for the purpose of supplementing the unemployed benefit and not supplanting it; and whether he will consider issuing instructions to the unemployed committees to act differently in the future?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): The action of the local committees is in accordance with the general instructions laid down far their
guidance. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to depart from these instructions in the particular case to which the hon. Member refers.
I would remind the hon. Member that the claims in question are in respect of uncovenanted benefit, that is, benefit which is payable in advance of contributions paid by the applicants to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the unmarried men now being denied uncovenanted benefit because they reside with their parents will be compelled to pay contributions to make up the loss during the deficiency period?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Certainly it is suggested in the whole scheme that those who are provided with benefit from uncovenanted sources will be called upon hereafter to pay contributions when once more in employment.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that these are being denied benefit on the ground that they are living with their parents and unmarried, and that they will also be asked to contribute to make up that deficiency? That is the point I want to put.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put that question down.

EGYPT (EVACUATION).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform this House when His Majesty's Government proposes to give effect to the repeated promises of responsible British statesmen to evacuate Egypt?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Declaration of His Majesty's Government to Egypt approved by Parliament on the 14th March, 1922.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN.

KASSALA RAILWAY.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Kassala railway in the Sudan is to be built in anticipation of growing
cotton on the extensive and valuable rain lands of the Baraka valley; if the Baraka natives are to be expropriated from their lands; and, if so, upon what terms?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative the third part in consequence does not arise.

MAKWAR DAM.

Mr. JOHNSTON further: 26.
asked if Colonel Sir Edgar Bernard, until recently financial secretary to the Sudan Government, was sent to this country to negotiate with the Treasury additional guarantees to the £6,000,000 already sanctioned for the Makwar dam scheme on the Blue Nile; if the Treasury declined to agree to the proposals made; and if, as a result of the failure of these negotiations, any pressure was brought to bear upon Colonel Bernard to tender his resignation?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The last part, therefore, does not arise.

SLAVE TRADE.

Mr. LINFIELD: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations has decided to place upon the agenda and discuss next September the whole question of slavery; whether the Council of the League has been asked to obtain any information available in time for the meeting of the Assembly; and whether His Majesty's Government will co-operate with the Council in any action it is decided to take with a view to putting an end to this traffic in human beings?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the, affirmative. As regards the last part, His Majesty's Government will naturally do what they can to assist in carrying out any resolution of the Council or Assembly.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Will the Council consider the question of wage slavery here?

Mr. C. ROBERTS: Does that mean specifically that the Foreign Office will give any information which it has in reference to slavery in Abyssinia?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not answer that question without notice, because I do not know, first, whether we have any information with regard to Abyssinia, and, second, whether it would be proper to give it if we had.

Mr. LINFIELD: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to reports from Paris, published in this country, upon the recrudescence of slavery, including considerable slave traffic between Madagascar and the African mainland, and the efforts being made by the French Government to put a stop to this traffic; and whether His Majesty's Government will consult the French Government as to the feasibility of joint naval efforts in this direction along the east coast of the African continent?

Mr. McNEILL: I Faye been unable to trace the reports to which the hon. Member is referring. If he will inform me where they are to he found, I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

OIL PROPERTIES.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 29 and 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government has agreed with the Rumanian Government the amount of compensation to be paid to the various British companies whose wells, petrol, and other effects were destroyed in November and December, 1916, by a British Commission acting under the instructions of His Majesty's Government, he can now state the amounts agreed upon;
(2) whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the fact that the amount of compensation payable to the various British companies, whose oil properties in Rumania were destroyed by a British Commission acting under instructions of His Majesty's Government, has been settled, the Rumanian Government disclaims any interest in the settlement of the compensation payable, unless the funds are provided by the guarantor, on the ground that the Rumanian Government acted at the request of His Majesty's Minister in Rumania made from time to
time prior to the 3rd December, 1916, and that on that date a promise in writing to indemnify the Rumanian Government was given by His Majesty's Minister in Rumania to the Rumanian Foreign Minister; and whether, in view of the fact that there is no prospect of the Rumanian Government providing this compensation, His Majesty's Government, being ultimately liable in pursuance of their indemnity, will now provide these funds, and will see that they go to the British companies to whom they are payable?

Mr. McNEILL: Negotiations are proceeding with the Rumanian Government which cover both the amount of compensation to be paid and the method of payment. Pending the conclusion of these negotiations, it is not possible for me to make a full statement on the matter, but I must not be taken as assenting to the accuracy of the statements contained in the hon. Member's question. Briefly, the position is that the Rumanian Government is responsible for paying compensation for the damage in question, and His Majesty's Government is under no liability (direct or indirect) to make any payment to the British or other companies concerned. It was agreed in 1921 between the British and the 'Rumanian Governments that the indemnification promised to the Rumanian Government shall take the form of the cancellation of part of the Rumanian War Debt to this country.

FOREIGN DEBT.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Rumanian Government is reviewing its debts to foreign holders; if so, whether he will draw the attention of the Roumanian Minister in London to the fact that the Roumanian Government is in partial default to British holders of Rumanian 4 per cent. 1908 bonds in respect to the contract to repay capital by a sinking fund and to pay the coupons in gold lei; and whether he will ask what steps the Roumanian authorities propose to take to honour to British subjects their obligations as printed on the bonds and coupons of their 1908 loan?

Mr. McNEILL: As a result of negotiations between the Rumanian Government and His Majesty's Government, a special Rumanian Commission has been appointed
to investigate the claims of holders of these bonds in this country and to arrange for the payment of interest due. This Commission arrived in London on the 14th February last, and is lodged at the Rumanian Legation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MEMEL.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the conditions presented to the Lithuanian Government for settling the question of Memel by the British, French, and other Western Governments, it was proposed to set up an international administration; whether Poland has been asked to participate, but Russia has not been asked; and why Russia has been omitted, seeing that Russian interests are as great or greater than those of any other country?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last two parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's reply to his question on the 8th instant.

BRITISH ZONE, GERMANY (MONEY PAYMENTS).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements have been made for money to reach the British zone from unoccupied Germany without hindrance; and, if not, what steps have been taken to supply the essential needs of the area in German currency?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's High Commissioner at Coblenz is at present satisfied with the position.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Are there sufficient marks to pay the British troops in Cologne?

Mr. McNEILL: I imagine that if there were not the High Commissioners would not be satisfied.

HUNGARY (REPARATION PAYMENTS).

Mr. MOSLEY: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the total value in money and in kind paid as reparations
by Hungary; which of the Allied Powers have received payment; and the value of such payments in each case?

Captain DOUGLAS KING (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hungary has paid in cash for the cost of the Inter-Allied Commissions of Control and of the Budapesth Bureau of the National Services which deal with Restitution, but the exact figure is not available. Hungary has paid in cash about £35,000 to the present date for the expenses of the Reparation Commission. The total value of deliveries in kind made by Hungary on account of reparation to the 31st January, 1923, is about 36 million gold crowns, or about £1,500,000. This represents ships, rivercraft, livestock, coal and Armistice deliveries. The deliveries in kind have been made to Italy, Greece, Serbia, Rumania and Czccho-Slovakia. The Reparation Commission have not yet valued the State properties ceded by Hungary or her abandoned war material.

EASTERN GALICIA.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Ambassadors' Conference proposes to decide the question of the boundary between Poland and Eastern Galicia, or the fate and future government of Eastern Galicia, without hearing the case for the Ruthenes or Ukrainians; and whether the majority vote of the Ambassadors' Conference is final or whether, if unanimous agreement is not reached, the matter will he referred to the League of Nations?

Mr. McNEILL: As regards the first part of the question. I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Rye on the 7th instant. Decisions arrived at by the Ambassadors' Conference must be unanimous. Failing such unanimity, I am not at present in a position to state what course of action will be pursued.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the ambassadors are now deciding on this question of Eastern Galicia without hearing the case of the Galicians?

Mr. McNEILL: I think if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the question
to which I have referred him, he will see that that Ambassadors' Conference can hear evidence or representations from any source.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are at liberty to hear these people if they want to be heard?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly.

Mr. J. BUTLER: 64.
asked the Prime Minister whether a delegation claiming to represent the people of Eastern Galicia has asked to be allowed to lay their views before the Council of Ambassadors; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will instruct their representative on the Council to press for such facilities being given?

Mr. McNEILL: As regards the first part of the question I have no information. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, on the 7th instant.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As a matter of fact, is the Ukrainian case being put before the Ambassadors' Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not know.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly I will look into the matter.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that the question of Eastern Galicia will not be decided until the Ukrainian national representatives have been heard?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say that. As I have already stated, discretion in the matter rests with the Ambassadors' Conference.

GREECE AND TURKEY.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, in Constantinople, there are already over 23,000 Greek refugees from Anatolia and thousands more expected, many of whom are sick and dying of small-pox, typhus, and other maladies, and unable to gain admission to hospital, the Greek hospital being already full and the Turks refusing admission to the Turkish hospital; and
whether the Government will at once take steps to alleviate the desperate condition of these people by helping to supply the means for providing hospitals and other necessaries for the sufferers?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have already done their utmost for the refugees in the Near East, and consider that, in view of the financial stringency in this country, it is impossible for them at this moment further to extend their commitments in this direction. It is not in the power of His Majesty's .Government to provide hospitals in Constantinople, but efforts are being made to send out further supplies of Government vaccine to the Near East. The continued arrival of these refugees, for whom there is no accommodation and whose condition is deplorable, is clue in great measure to the premature evacuation of the Christian population of Anatolia in conditions entirely contrary to the spirit of the agreement reached at Lausanne for the orderly exchange of Greek and Turkish minorities. His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has been instructed to make strong representations to the Turkish Government with a view to check the continued influx into Constantinople and Greece of refugees for whom it is impossible to provide.

Mr. C. BUXTON: Did not Lord Balfour announce that a sum of £50,000 would be available of which only£1 9,000 has been given?

Mr. McNEILL: The promise of that money was subject to the condition that there would be like contributions from other Powers, and as that Condition was not complied with by the other Powers, we were obliged to give notice at the end of last year that our offer in that respect was at an end.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Hellenic Government has been compelled temporarily to suspend the transport of refugees from Turkish Black Sea ports; whether such refugees are now being landed in Constantinople without adequate provision for housing, feeding, or medical attention in spite of the prevalence of smallpox and typhus; and whether His
Majesty's Government is taking steps towards making immediate provision for these refugees?

Mr. McNEILL: In regard to the first part of the question, I have no official information regarding any arrangements made by the Greek Government for the evacuation of refugees from the Turkish Black Sea ports; but I would point out that the matter does not primarily concern that Government, since the refugees are not Greek subjects, and the Greco-Turkish agreement for the exchange of minorities which was concluded at Lausanne has not yet come into force. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have to-day given to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor).

Mr. N. BUXTON: Will the Foreign Office call the attention of the League of Nations to the epidemics that prevail and to the danger of disease spreading if the refugees are not properly cared for?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that the League of Nations is fully seized of the facts in that regard and do not require to have them brought to their notice.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, prior to the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate for moneys expended in connection with the despatch of naval and military reinforcements to the Near East in the autumn of last year, he will cause to be laid before Parliament the Papers relative to the events leading up to the Greek defeat in Asia Minor and the fall of Smyrna and to the negotiations with the Turkish Nationalist authorities in September?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must adhere to the opinion expressed in my answer to the supplementary question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 5th March.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before the Supplementary Estimate is introduced we shall see these Papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give me an assurance that there will he peace with Turkey I might consider the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if and as soon as peace with Turkey is concluded these Papers will be laid before the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that proposal.

Mr. PRINGLE: If peace is never con - eluded with Turkey are we never to see the Papers?

BOLSHEVIST PROPAGANDA (CHINA).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 33.
asked the. Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether M. Joffe, the Soviet representative in the Far East, has been indulging in Bolshevist propaganda and, if so, whether, in view of the effect of such procedure upon British trade, he will state what action China is taking in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: It is reported that. M. Joffe during his stay in Peking made-a number of speeches advocating Bolshevism. The Chinese Government are understood to have warned M. Joffe and to be keeping a close watch on his proceedings.

Mr. NEWBOLD: In the case of certain other foreign Ambassadors at Angora, is a careful watch being kept on them when they come from Paris?

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member will have to specify to whom he refers.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Franklin Bouillon.

RUSSIA (BRITISH WAR LOANS).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what proportions the loan advanced by the Government of this country during the War to the Russian Government was transferred to the latter in the form of money, military stores, and other goods, respectively; whether any of the proceeds of the loan in any form whatever were forwarded to Russia after the November, 1917, revolution; if so, to whom; and what proportion of the loan was spent in this country?

Captain KING: I have been asked to answer this on behalf of my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The sums advanced by this country to Russia during the War in all cases took the form of cash advances. Of the total of about £562,000,000, £188,000,000 was repaid to British Government Departments in respect of the cost of military stores supplied to Russia. The balance was used by the Russian Government partly for the purchase of military stores and other goods from private contractors, and partly for the cash requirements of the Russian Government, such as the payment of coupons, the upkeep of diplomatic services and support of the exchange, but information as to the exact allocation is not available. On 30th November, 1917, the War Cabinet decided to suspend the despatch of all war-like stores to Russia: the despatch of non-warlike stores already ordered was temporarily continued to the original consignees. A large proportion of the sums advanced to the Russian Government was spent in this country, but certain orders were placed in the United States, Canada and neutral European countries. Exact figures are not available.

Mr. MACLEAN: Cannot exact figures be got as to the proportion spent in this country and the proportion spent in the United States? They should be easy to get.

Captain KING: I will ask my right hon. Friend if these figures are available.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will state the opening and closing dates of the British Empire Exhibition; how it is intended to provide for the cost in excess of the sum guaranteed; and if he will give the figures of the estimated receipts and expenditure from the opening date of the exhibition which have been prepared?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wotmer): The exhibition will open in April, 1924, and close about the end of October in that year. It is intended that the whole of the cost should be met out of the receipts. As regards the last part of the question, the Estimates con-
cerned are necessarily provisional, and I do not think it is desirable to make them public at present.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Can we be assured that there will be no further calls upon the national finances in connection with this exhibition?

Viscount WOLMER: I can hardly add to my reply.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT.

Captain MOREING: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can give an estimate of the value of the orders secured to British manufacturers through the agency of his Department?

Viscount WOLMER: No, Sir. Information is frequently received that orders have been obtained by British manufacturers as the result of the work of the Department and its overseas officers, but it is quite impossible to make an estimate of the total volume of business thus secured.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

RABBITS.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the introduction by the Government last year of a Bill for the purpose of giving to occupiers of agricultural holdings protection against the invasion of their crops by rabbits from adjoining land, he will consider the introduction of similar legislation during the present Session of Parliament?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Sanders): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to him on the 26th ultimo.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If a Bill was necessary last year, is it not necessary also this year, having regard to the fact that in the interval rabbits have shown no decrease.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed a statement which appeared lately in a London newspaper to the effect that grievous losses were caused by rabbits in this and other lands, but that even greater trouble has been caused in this country by the invasion of the indomitable Scot?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is not that due to the fact that Scotland—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate that particular subject.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for a. private Bill to remove the evil?

Sir R. SANDERS: What? To kill rabbits!

WAGES.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what measures Government propose to introduce for the relief of agriculture which will enable employers to pay higher wages; and when such measures will be introduced!?

Sir R. SANDERS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement made in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. A Bill dealing with credit facilities is now being drafted and will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how long it will take for these measures to filter clown to the agricultural labourer?

CREDIT FACILITIES.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 65.
asked the. Minister of Agriculture when His Majesty's Government will be in a position to announce the action which they have decided to take with regard to the recommendations of the Committee on Credit Facilities?

Sir R. SANDERS: As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General Spears) on the 5th instant, a Bill is being drafted on the lines of the Committee s recommendations. I must ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of this Bill, which will be presented as soon as possible.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: In view of the urgency of the farmers' needs at. economy time, and in the interests of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making use of the existing banks as a channel through which credit facilities could be granted?

Sir R. SANDERS: That matter is being thoroughly considered by the Committee.

SHEEP SCAB.

Sir THOMAS HENDERSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether double dipping, from the point of view of the prevention of sheep scab, has proved effective; whether the number of cases has decreased since it was introduced; and whether he can give the figures showing the number of certified cases reported in England for the years 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively?

Sir R. SANDERS: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The double dipping of sheep has never been required generally throughout the country, but it has been applied from time to time in certain badly infected districts with very good results. The number of outbreaks of sheep scab confirmed in England in each year from 1918 to 1922 is as follows:

1918
172


1919
245


1920
240


1921
368


1922
284

Sir T. HENDERSON: Does the increase in the number of cases not show that double dipping has not been effective?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, I do not think so. It is quite possible if it had not been for double dipping the cases would he much more numerous.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: In what Bounties is double dipping practised?

Sir R. SANDERS: I would require notice of that question.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the imposition of a penalty upon those whose sheep become affected would not be effective?

Sir R. SANDERS: I should like notice of that question also.

HOPS.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the control of the importation of foreign hops until such time as the pre-War acreage under hop cultivation in this country has been reestablished?

Sir R. SANDERS: The importation of foreign hops will be strictly regulated during the existence of the hop control, which will be continued under the provisions of the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, until August, 1925. I am carefully considering what action may be advisable after that date.

CANADIAN CATTLE.

Mr. THORNTON: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when Canadian cattle are expected to be landed in this country and where they will be landed; and what will be the method of selling Canadian stores, whether by live weight, at auction, or by private sales

Sir R. SANDERS: The Importation of Animals Act, 1922, will come into operation on the 1st April next, and I understand that the first consignment of Canadian store cattle will reach this country either on or about that date. Landing places will be available at Birkenhead, Manchester, Glasgow, Dundee and Cardiff. Bristol will be

AREA AND PRODUCTION OF UNDERMENTIONED CROPS IN GERMANY IN 1920, 1921 AND 1922.


—
Area.
Production.


1920.
1921.
1922.
1920.
1921.
1922.



Acres.
Acres.
Acres.
Cwts.
Cwts.
Cwts.


Wheat
…
…
…
3,397,240
3,559,369
3,382,462
44,228,593
57,733,386
37,305,124


Spelt (Winter)
…
…
392,241
372,303
312,870
3,519,788
4,077,184
2,518,005


Rye
…
…
…
10,584,244
10,534,641
10,245,767
97,101,154
133,787,481
105,262,400


Barley (Summer)
…
2,948,083
2,807,135
2,839,939
35,280,707
38,156,650
31,119,043


Oats
…
…
…
7,937,073
7,810,693
7,901,416
94,971,226
98,490,915
81,287,849






Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Potatoes
…
…
…
5,983,543
6,538,488
6,725,200
27,429,164
25,731,090
40,023,200


Sugar Beet
…
…
804,583
961,954
1,031,100
7,808,960
7,851,356
10,621,200


Roots (Runkelruben)
…
*
1,801,959
*
*
17,535,205
*


*Particulars of the area and production of Roots (Runkelruben) in 1920 and 1922 are not available.


Note.—Figures for 1920 and 1921 are taken from "Vierteljahrshefte zur Statistit des Deutsche Reichs, 1922," those for Corn crops of 1922 are from "Deutscher Reichauzeiger 29 September, 1922" and for Root crops 1922 are from "International Crop Report for January, 1923," issued by the International Institute of Agriculture, Rome, and have been converted into English measure and weight.

POTATOES (PRICES).

Lieut.-Colonel COATES: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that best white potatoes have recently been sold in the Isle of Ely

added to this list as soon as arrangements are completed. With regard to the second part, I possess no powers to control or regulate the method of sale.

Captain O'GRADY: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the claims of the Deptford Market to be one of those which will receive these cattle?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, I believe that is being considered.

CEREAL AND ROOT CROPS, GERMANY.

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the areas and yields of cereal and root crops in Germany in the years 1920, 1021, and 1922, respectively?

Sir. R. SANDERS: As the reply to the question takes the form of a lengthy statistical statement, I propose, with the concurrence of the House, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following the statement:

markets at 17s. per ton; and if he will now take some practical steps to guarantee the farmer an adequate return for his potato crops, in order that he may pay a living wage to farm labourers employed on such crops?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware that potatoes are fetching very low prices. With regard to the second part of the question, I do not know of any action that can usefully be taken by the Government In the matter, but I shall be glad to consider any practical suggestions which my hon. and gallant Friend may have to put forward.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Since these prices —prices far below the cost of production—are largely due to the excessive railway rates, has the Ministry of Agriculture any power to cause a reduction in the rates for agricultural produce?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, they have not.

Mr. NICHOL: In giving any guarantees, will the condition be made that a minimum wage is paid to agricultural labourers?

MILK (SALE AND DISTRIBUTION).

Sir JOHN LEIGH: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether Lord Linlithgow's Committee will issue an interim Report on the price of milk to the consumer; and, if so, when the Report may be expected?

Sir R. SANDERS: I understand from the Noble Marquess, the Chairman of the Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, that a draft Report, regarding the methods and costs of selling and distributing milk, is in course of preparation, and that as soon as certain outstanding information has been received, it will be completed for presentation.

DEFENCE FORCES (CO-RELATION).

Captain BENN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the terms of reference of the Committee which is inquiring into the co-operation and co-relation of the three services; and whether the Committee will publish a Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on Thursday last to a question by my Noble Friend the Member for Battersea South, and the supplementary questions arising there-from.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what authority the
Admiralty is retaining men for an Air Service which it. has no authority from this House to retain?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question without notice.

BUILDING MATERIALS (TRANSPORT COST).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great. shortage of dwelling-houses and the present high rate charged for the transport of all building materials over the railways, he will consider the necessity of early legislation to cause the railway companies to carry all building materials at a reduced rate for the purpose of encouraging more and cheaper houses being built?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. The Railways Act, 1921, established the Railway Rates Tribunal as the determining authority for railway charges 'and applications for reduction of existing charges may be made to the Tribunal under Sections 60 and 78 of that Act. In these circumstances, I see no reason to propose amending legislation.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir N. MOORE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to hold the Imperial and Economic. Conferences together; and, if so, if any date has yet been fixed for the same?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether replies have been received from all the Dominions with respect to the proposed Imperial Economic Conference; and whether it has yet been decided during which month the Conference will be held?

Mr. HURD: 62.
asked the Prime Minister the nature of the replies made by the Governments of the Dominions to the invitation to an Imperial Economic Conference; and when the Conference will be held?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already informed the house, communica-
tions are proceeding with the Governments of the Dominions and India as to the proposal to hold a meeting of the Imperial Conference, and an Imperial Economic Conference, this year; but they are not yet complete. I cannot, therefore, give a definite reply as to the form of the Conferences, or as to their date.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that the Conference will be held this year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot do that until we have had replies, but we hope that it will be held.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COUNCIL.

Mr. J. BUTLER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say what arrangements have been made for the representation of this country at the next meeting of the Council of the League of Nations and whether it will be the turn of the British representative to preside at this meeting?

The PRIME MINISTER: It has been arranged that this country will be represented at the meeting of the Council of the League in April by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. Lord Balfour is, For private reasons, unable to attend this meeting, but I am glad to say that he hopes to be able to represent this country at some of the subsequent meetings of the League. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

WAGES CLAIM, CLYDEBANK (COURT OF SESSION DECISION).

Mr. MAXTON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to a decision of the Court of Session in Scotland by which 3,000 employés of Singer's Manufacturing Company, Clydebank, have been refused a sum of £50,000 due in wage increases and previously granted in the Sheriff Court; and if he will take steps to relieve the distress resulting from that decision?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. I
have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to I am not aware that distress has arisen in consequence of the decision of the Court.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Seeing that this decision is based upon a difficult technicality, about which there is a keen difference of legal opinion, will the hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of retrospective legislation?

Mr. MAXTON: Does the hon. Gentleman think that any working class home can lose a sum of £16 which has been earned in wages without distress arising?

Captain ELLIOT: I take it this question is asked in connection with the technical definition of distress, that is, as regards people applying to the Poor Law authorities, and there is no evidence of applications having been made as a result of this decision. If it were not so, it would be obviously impossible for the local authority to take steps in connection with the matter.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increased volume of work which has been allocated to the Colonial Office, such as all matters relating to the Near East, Irish problems, etc, he will consider giving the Minister of Labour further powers to deal with questions relating to emigration, so that this work may he speeded up, particularly in view of the fact that the Department is already co-operating in this direction and has machinery adaptable for this purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the fact in the first part of the question, but I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would prove generally acceptable.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that some steps will be taken to expedite matters in the Department concerned with furthering the interests of migration?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, it is now being considered by the Government.

EX-MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS (PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. NEWBOLD: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to forbid, under the severest penalties, any ex-Minister or high-placed Government servant accepting employment with any firm of contractors to His Majesty's Government for a period of five years after his retirement?

The PRIME MINISTER: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Frome on the 4th December last, I am not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

STAR COURT (OLD MATERIAL).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the existence of a dump of old slates and timber which has now been in the Star Court for some years; and, if there is no prospect of this material being required, whether steps can be taken to remove it at an early date?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir J. Baird): The material in question is now being removed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LADY VISITORS).

Mr. DOYLE: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has yet fulfilled the promise he made to the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne to provide a room with suitable accommodation for lady visitors to the House of Commons?

Sir J. BAIRD: A room for lady visitors and also cloak room accommodation have been available since the beginning of the Session.

Mr. DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the accommodation is, and will he take steps to have it made known?

Sir J. BAIRD: The accommodation is near the downstairs smoking room overlooking the Terrace.

ST. JAMES'S PARK (REFRESHMENT HUT).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 76.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the annual rental
offered by Mrs. Orford for the retention of the trading privilege to supply sweets and refreshments in St. James's Park, and the amount of the annual rental to be paid by the present. tenant?

Sir J. BAIRD: The amounts were respectively £50 and £150.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Have not this lady and previous members of the same family enjoyed this privilege for something like 150 years, and is not this lady entitled to have more generous consideration?

Sir J. BAIRD: I am afraid it is impossible to deal with that by question and answer. It is a long and complicated story. I cannot accept the contention that the lady is entitled to more generous treatment, but I shall be very glad to show the right hon. Gentleman all the facts connected with the case.

Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it not a fact that this family did hold the tenancy for about 150 years?

Sir J. BAIRD: I should not like to commit myself as to the number of years, but members of the lady's family have been there for a good long time.

Mr. MAXTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very serious departure from the hereditary principle?

Sir J. BAIRD: It was explained to this lady in 1913 that she would not be able to carry on indefinitely.

Mr. MAXTON: You might do that in other cases.

TRAFALGAR SQUARE (WAR MEMORIAL).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is contemplated to place any memorial in Trafalgar Square to commemorate the victory of our arms in the Great War?

Sir J. BAIRD: The answer is in the negative.

GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.

Mr. T. GRIFFITH S: 84.
asked the Minister of Health the result of his inquiries as to what was the cost of the
election of the nurses' direct representatives on the General Nursing Council for England and Wades which had to be quashed; and what was the cost of the second made necessary thereby?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I am informed that the total cost of the election, including the cost of printing the lists of registered nurses, but excluding the expenditure entailed by the second ballot, was£635 9s. ld. The net cost of the second ballot, after deducting the amount recovered from the contractors who were responsible for the miscarriage of voting papers for the first ballot, was £116 18s. 0½d.

LUNACY ACT (APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGE).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 79 of the Lunacy Act confers upon friends as well as relatives the right to apply to the visiting committee for the discharge of a patient on accepting responsibility in regard to him, and seeing that the plan followed by the asylum authorities of communicating this right by circular to one relative only has the effect of discarding that part of the Section which refers to friends, he will take steps to secure that the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, be forthwith carried out and Section 79 be posted up in the waiting rooms of public asylums in order that the rights guaranteed by statute may no longer be intentionally concealed from friends?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the opinion of die Board of Control, there are serious objections to a general rule requiring that this. Section should be posted tip in waiting-rooms. If any friends apply to a mental hospital for a copy of the regulations, the Board have no doubt that their request would be complied with. The Board are considering the revision of their rules, and it is proposed to require that copies of regulations as to visitation, which will include the substance of Section 79, shall he sent to all persons mentioned as relatives or friends of the patient in the statement of particulars accompanying the reception order.

MEAT INSPECTION.

Mr. TILLETT: 86.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can inform the House at what date will be issued the proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on meat inspection?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Effect has already been given to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which deal with the question of uniformity in meat inspection by the issue of a circular and memorandum to local authorities in March, 1922. I will send the hon. Member a copy of these documents. Regulations have been drafted to give effect to the Committee's recommendations in regard to the marking of meat, and these are under discussion with the parties interested. Regulations are also being prepared dealing with the transport and handling of meat, but I am not yet able to say on what date these Regulations will be issued.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: When the right hon. Gentleman says discussion with the parties, does he mean the trade, and, if so, have the Department forwarded copies to the co-operative movement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say now whether the co-operative movement are included, but all parties who are properly interested will certainly be taken into consideration.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman expedite the issuing of this farther circular in connection with the handling of meat?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will see if I can.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (FIGHTING AND BOMBING SQUADRONS).

Mr. MOSLEY: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many fighting and bombing air squadrons, respectively, are now left in commission in Great Britain; how many fighting and bombing air squadrons, respectively, are now left in commission in France; how many such squadrons can be mobilised within each of these countries in the period of one
month if it be assumed that existing extraneous commitments must be maintained; and how many machines comprise a British and French squadron, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare): With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I propose to deal with the first two parts of this question in my speech introducing the Air Estimates on Wednesday next.
As regards the third part of the question, it is not considered desirable in the public interests to give this information so far as it concerns Great Britain, and, so far as it concerns France, no definite information is available.
As regards the last part of the question, British squadrons consist of 12 aeroplanes, except twin-engined bombers, which consist of 10; French squadrons consist of 10 aeroplanes, except night bombers, which consist of eight.

Mr. MOSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the other fighting services continually give analagous figures of a comparative nature, and is not the public entitled to know what our standard of aerial defence is?

Sir S. HOARE: I am perfectly willing to give the hon. Member comparative figures, but I have not got the French figures here to-day, and it is on this account that I suggested that I should give them on Wednesday next.

Mr. MOSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman then give the exact comparative figures of the number of squadrons which can he mobilised in Great Britain and in France, showing the relative strength of the two countries for defensive purposes, as the Navy continually give such figures?

Sir S. HOARE: I will consider that specific question, but I hope to deal with a number of statistics of this kind on the Air Estimates on Wednesday next.

Mr. MOSLEY: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is the gravest public apprehension on this question and that the public expect some reply?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes.

PENSIONS (NORTH-WESTERN REGION).

Mr. PARKINSON: 79.
asked the Minister of Pensions (1) the number of ex-service men's pension cases dealt with by the north-western region during the period 1st February, 1922, to 1st February, 1923, stating the number of pensions reduced, increased, unaltered, and ended, and the amount of money involved in these alterations:
(2) the number of widows pensions and pecuniary need pensions which have been reduced, increased, or ended during the period 1st February, 1922, to 1st February, 1923, in the north-western region and the amount of money involved in these changes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): I regret that the records of the Ministry are not. kept in such form as to enable me to give the comparative figures asked for by regions, and my right hon. Friend is unwilling to undertake the very considerable amount of additional labour which would be necessary to furnish replies to the questions asked.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.

Sir JOHN LEIGH: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total annual cost to the British taxpayer of the Imperial Institute; when the contributions from the Dominions cease; and how soon the Committee that is inquiring into the financial position expect to report?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Grant-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute for the current year is £10,000. I am informed that the indirect contributions of the Imperial Government to the institute in 1921–22 were: Maintenance, etc, £5,334: contribution in lieu of rates, £3,931.
The contribution of the Commonwealth of Australia has already ceased, and that of the Government of India will cease after the current financial year. It is not known whether the contributions of the other Dominions will be continued or not.
The Committee referred to by my hon. Friend has only recently begun its inquiry; and its report can hardly be available for some time.

EDUCATION (CHOICE OF EMPLOYMENT GRANT).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 91.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether all the expenditure of a local education authority which elects to exercise its full powers under Section 107 (Choice of Employment) of the Education Act, 1921, will rank for grant except such as is met by the Ministry of Labour under Clause 6 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill now before the House?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): If a local education authority exercises choice of employment powers under the conditions contemplated in Clause 6 of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, the Board propose to recognise for grant so much of the expenditure of the authority as is not met by the Ministry of Labour, provided that the expenditure is such as the Board can approve.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TINNED MEAT.

Sir N. MOORE: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for whether any tenders have been called for the supply of tinned meat for the Army; and whether, in considering these tenders, any special consideration is given in cases where the meat is produced within British Dominions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, special consideration is given to offers for canned meat produced within the Empire whenever supplies are required by the War Office. I regret, however, that owing to the great difference in prices on the last tendering it was not possible to place the order with Dominion producers.

Sir N. MOORE: When was the Order placed?

Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I must have notice of that question.

DEPTFORD CATTLE MARKET.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 93.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any portion of the Deptford cattle market has recently been evacuated by the Department; and, if not, can he state when a partial or complete release of the premises is likely to take place?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The question of the evacuation of a large part of the area is, however, being taken up with the ground landlords.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF MUSIC (WALES).

Mr. LEWIS: 97.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the work of the National Council of Music of the University of Wales is purely educational in character, he will take steps to exempt the public performances organised by the Council from the Entertainment Tax?

Captain KING: If the hon. Member Rill furnish my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with full particulars of the public performances to which he refers, he will have inquiry made as to whether they are within the scope of the statutory exemptions from Entertainments Duty.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (CAB-DRIVERS).

Mr. TILLETT: 95.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the position of licensed cab-drivers and their exclusion from the operations of the Workmen's Compensation Act and other protective legislation, with a view to taking steps in the interest of the welfare of this class of workers.?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): A cab-driver who works under a contract of service with the cab owner comes within the Workmen's Compensation Act in the same way as any other employé, and I understand that, except in London, cab-drivers do usually, if not invariably, work under a contract of service. In London, however, the driver
hires his cab from the owner, and the Courts have held that he is not an employé for the purposes of the Act. The Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation recommended that the Act should be extended to cover the case of the London driver, and this recommendation will receive careful consideration.

Mr. SHORT: Is there any likelihood of legislation being introduced upon this subject?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

ARRESTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

STATEMENT BY HOME SECRETARY.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can make a statement with regard to the reported arrest and immediate deportation to Ireland of a number of people residing in this country; the reason for the action taken, and the authority under which he acted?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will, if I may, answer this question, and another question of which Private Notice has also been given to me by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones).

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I want to know if my question is exactly the same as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon. With due respect, I have raised a different issue altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have his opportunity if he raises a specific question after the hon. Gentleman has answered the general one.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was proposing to read out the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Silvertown, and I thought my general answer would cover the points of both questions. The question of the hon. Member is as follows:—
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a school teacher, born in England, named Frank Fitzgerald, of Forest Gate, was arrested about 12 a.m. on Sunday morning, 11th March and has since been deported to Ireland; if he will state the reason for this
arrest; and if there is any legal redress for a citizen of this country who has been arrested and deported in this way?
Certain arrests, one of which is referred to by the hon. Member for Silver-town in his question, were carried out during the week-end in pursuance of orders made by me and the Secretary of Scotland respectively, directing that a number of persons shall be interned under No. 14B of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. There has lately been a progressive increase in Irish Republican activity here. We are in possession of material clearly indicating the existence of a quasi-military organisation controlled by a person calling himself "Officer Commanding Britain"—

Mr. LANSBURY: Galloper Smith!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: —and of an intention on the part of that organisation primarily to do everything in their power, in co-operation with the Irregulars in Ireland, to overthrow the Free State Government, and also in certain contingencies to resort to acts of violence in this country in pursuance of their unlawful aims. It was clearly the duty of His Majesty's Government being in possession of such information, to take action, and we have for sometime past been in consultation with the Free State Government as to the best method of dealing with the situation. The arrests have been made at the request of that Government. The persons arrested are all of Irish origin and are either members of the organisation referred to, or have supported it directly or indirectly. They will be held in custody by the Free State Government in their own country. This seemed, on the whole, after full consideration, the simplest and most effective method of dealing with these persons who, claiming to be Irish, and to be acting in the interests of Ireland, have so grossly abused the hospitality of this country.

Captain HAY: That is begging the question.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If hon. Members express the wish to be more fully informed as to the organisation against which this action has been directed, I shall be pleased, as soon as possible, to place in the Library illustrative specimens of documents which have lately fallen into our hands. The persons arrested have all
been informed that they may, if they wish, make representations to an Advisory Committee, which will be presided over by someone who holds, or has held, high judicial office.

Mr. MacDONALD: Arising out of the answer, first of all on the point of legality: Does the Government hold that the Restoration of Order, Ireland, Regulations, run in this country; and, secondly, with reference to the Committee, is that Committee sitting in this country, and are the deported persons to be allowed to return to this country during the inquiry into the deportation?

Mr. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask if a reply is going to be given to my question. My question relates to a British subject, born in England, and if such are going to be deported without appeal to the ordinary Courts of Law? If this man has been guilty of any offence against the State, I am not here to defend him, but I am asking, are not the ordinary Courts in this country available? [Interruption.] I am going to go on if I am chucked out!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With regard to the last question, I was told that this person was engaged in this organisation.

Mr. JONES: He was not. He is a British subject. Why do you not answer my question?

HON. MEMBERS: It has been answered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really listen to the answer.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already said that this man has the power of appearing before an Advisory Committee.

Mr. JONES: He is an English subject, and he has a right to appear before the Courts of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am not going to give way. This man is an English subject, and he has no right to be deported without trial.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has already asked that question—

Mr. JONES: The Leader of the Opposition does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question is under what Statutes were these proceedings taken.

Mr. JONES: Why should a man he deported like this?

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to make it perfectly clear—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member put it in the form of a question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the home Secretary claim the right to deport a British subject, born in this country, to another country without any trial either by judge or jury?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have already answered that question. My answer is that I have taken legal advice on this matter, and I am assured that I am acting within my rights. With regard to the question as to where the location of the Advisory Committee would be, it would be in this country.

Mr. JONES: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given to my question, I beg to move that the House be adjourned on a matter of definite and public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will draft his Motion, and I will deal with it at the end of questions.

Mr. MacDONALD: Has my right hon. Friend acted under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act, Regulation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, I have.

Mr. MacDONALD: Has the Home Secretary specifically asked whether these Regulations run in this country?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, and I have acted under Regulation 14B of the Act and I am advised—

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Read it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have not got it here, but I am advised that I am acting under the legal authority provided in that Section.

Mr. WEBB: Did the legal advice which the right hon. Gentleman took specifically cover the point that the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act applies in this country to a British subject?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have taken legal advice on all the points concerned in this case.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I desire to ask if in the case of Frank FitzGerald, of 23, Cave Street, the right hon. Gentleman has not made a mistake and mixed him up with another Irishman of the same name, and whether he has deported entirely a wrong person? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular Frank FitzGerald is not the Frank FitzGerald concerned in a machine gun case recently, and is he aware that this particular Frank FitzGerald has never functioned in any of the Irish organisations after the establishment of the Free State in Southern Ireland, and is he aware that he has actually resigned his membership of the Self-Determination League, and has he not deported the wrong man?

Viscount CURZON: Is this the gentleman who was arrested at the National Liberal Club?

Mr. JONES: He was arrested in his own house.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no information that he was arrested at the National Liberal Club.

Captain O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this particular Act to which he refers became law before the Treaty was agreed to in Dublin or after; and, further, can the right. hon. Gentleman say whether this particular Committee has any power greater than the British Courts in the matter of jurisdiction over men who were born here in England and are British subjects?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer legal questions of that character. I think, however, my previous answer covers the point, because I have taken legal advice.

Captain O'GRADY: Were any warrants read over to the people who were arrested, or were they arrested bylettres de cachet like you are deporting the Indians?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: As the Home Secretary has quoted a certain Regulation, will he read it to the House?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Regulation can be found in the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act and it. Is Regulation No. 14B.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it within the competence of the Home Secretary to give an answer on such an important matter without quoting the whole of the text?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite ready to read out the Regulation to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: Presently, I am going to call on the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) to submit his Motion.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to read the Regulation?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, but it is so long.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it will be better to deal with this matter on the Motion of the hon. Member for Silvertown, which I shall presently put to the House.

As the end of Questions—

Mr. J. JONES: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of the Government on Saturday night last and Sunday in arresting and deporting certain British subjects to Ireland."

The pleasure of the House having been Signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past Eight this evening.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a Private Bill set down for discussion to-night at 8.15 that will probably continue till 11 o'clock, and will therefore seriously curtail the discussion on the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, and whether, in these circumstances, it will be possible for him to give further time for discussion of the Navy Votes in Committee?

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not departed from the customary procedure of this House before the War by which we had the whole day for the discussion on the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair? It was the invariable practice before the War.

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the question will show that we are not departing from, the custom. I am aware of the circumstances, as stated by the Noble Lord. The House will realise that the setting down of Private Bills for discussion at 8.15 is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means and does not rest with the Government. I hope very much that the House will be able to give us the Committee stage of the Votes on the Paper at not too late an hour to-night, and, while it is not possible for me definitely to promise to give further time before Easter in view of the fact that the Consolidated Fund Bill must he taken before Monday week, I hope that, by arrangement, the Navy Votes may be taken on an early Supply Day after the reassembling of the House.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Prime Minister has not dealt with the customary procedure. In 1910–1911 and 1912 we had a whole day for the discussion of the Motion to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. The only departure was in 1913 when the House assembled for the Session on 12th March. Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to help us in the situation?

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the Prime Minister aware that there can be no other day for a general discussion or The discussion of Vote A, because the other discussions must take place on other Votes?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the only remedy of hon. Gentlemen to vote against the Motion for the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that I can add anything to the reply which I have given. My hon. and gallant Friend has himself shown that the Rule is not an absolute one.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury when we shall be able to get the Army Estimates in the Vote Office?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Colonel Leslie Wilson): They are in the Vote Office now.

Mr. PRINGLE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything else besides the Navy Estimates is to be taken to-night under the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask you, Sir, whether we shall be allowed to carry on the policy discussion on Vote I on Report, and whether we can circumscribe the discussion by discussing the Air question wholly on the Air Vote; and may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give us the Vote for the Committee of Defence at a, later date, so that we can discuss the question of a Ministry of Defence which several Members wish to raise?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it be the desire of the House, I shall be willing to do that in the circumstances, if the Votes be passed to-night in a short space of time. I recollect that it was done on a previous occasion, when wider scope was given on the Report stage. I think that will be a proper thing to do.
With regard to the other question raised by the hon. and gallant Member, T observe that the first two notices on the Paper for going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates raise that question, and it would seem more appropriate to take that kind of discussion on Wednesday.

Captain BENN: May we be assured that the First Lord of the Admiralty will be present on Wednesday to answer for what has been done by his Department?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: And will the Secretary of State for the Air Ministry be here to answer questions for his Department?

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—{The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 136.

Division No. 32.]
AYES.
[4.7 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Baird Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Amery, Ht. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnston, Major Harry


Apsley, Lord
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Harrison, F. C.
Pease, William Edwin


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hawke, John Anthony
Penny, Frederick George


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Blundell, F. N
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Peto, Basil E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Pielou, D. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton


Brass, Captain W.
Hewett. Sir J. P.
Privett, F. J.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Nawbury)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bruford, R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Remer, J. R.


Bruton, Sir James
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remnant, Sir James


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rentoul, G. S.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Burney, Com- (Middx., Uxbridge)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Butcher, Sir John George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hudson, Capt. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. sir S. (Ecclesall)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Collingwood
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Button, H. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Campion, Lieut. -Colonel W. R.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Russell, William (Bolton)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandon, Lord


Chapman, Sir S.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shepperson, E. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Shipwright, Captain D.


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Clayton, G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Singleton, J. E.


Coates, Lt.-Cot. Norman
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Lane-Fox, Lieut. Colonel G. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Collie, Sir John
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colvin, Brig-General Richard Beale
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sparkes, H. W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Lorimer, H. D.
Stanley, Lord


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Steel, Major S. Strang


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Ednam, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Manviile, Edward
Tubbs, S. W.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, H. D. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine-Boist, Captain C.
Mercer. Colonel H.
Wallace, Captain E.


Eyres Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mitchell, W F. (Saffron Walden)
Waring, Major Walter


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wells. S. R.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Molson, Major John Elsdale
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Whitla, Sir William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Winterton, Eart


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wise, Frederick


Furness, G. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Murchison, C. K.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Yerburgh. R. D. T.


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Gibbs.


Halstead, Major D.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John



NOES.


Adams, D.
Barnes, A.
Briant, Frank


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Batey, Joseph
Broad, F. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Buckle, J.


Attlee, C. R.
Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Burgess, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richards, R.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)


Chapple, W. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Royce, William Stapleton


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Saklatvala, S.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Salter, Dr. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Sexton, James


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Duncan, C.
Lansbury, George
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Dunnico, H.
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Edmonds, G.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Simpson, J. Hope


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, Thomas A.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Fairbairn, R. R.
Linfield, F. C.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Falconer, J.
Lowth, T.
Snell, Harry


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gosling, Harry
M'Entee, V. L.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
McLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
March, S.
Thornton, M.


Greenall, T.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Tillett, Benjamin


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Groves, T.
Millar, J. D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hall, P. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morel, E. D.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Webb, Sidney


Harbord, Arthur
Mosley, Oswald
Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.


Harris. Percy A.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Weir, L. M.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Newbold, J. T. W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Nlchol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, T (York. Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hillary, A. E.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wintringham, Margaret


Hirst, G. H.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hodge. Rt. Hon. John
Phillipps, Vivian
Wright, W.


Hogge, James Myles
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Potts, John S.



Irving, Dan
Prlngle, W. M. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr. Lunn.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (CHANGED TO "MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL ").

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in, the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, and to he printed. [Bill 461

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the. Unemployment Insurance Bill): Major Boyd-Carpenter; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Betterton.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

AVY ESTIMATES, 1923–

Orders for Committee read.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The new Estimates have now been for some days in the hands of hon. Members, who will, no doubt, in due course, perhaps at a later hour to-night, desire fuller information on many points of detail arising out of them. My immediate purpose, however, is to present them to the House in broad outline and to endeavour more particularly to convey, if I can, their significance in the general scheme of our post-War policy. The Estimates which were laid before the House a year ago were based on the new policy of definitely limited Naval armaments prescribed by the Washington Treaty, which had then just been agreed to by the representatives of the Great Powers concerned. But they, obviously, could not embody the full financial results of that policy. The reductions in the personnel both of the Fleet and of the dockyards, which I then announced, were necessarily spread over a considerable period, and the direct and indirect economies resulting from them could only be realised gradually over a course of years, while against these economies had to be set the heavy charge of some £3,000,000 for the scheme of compensation to the officers and men whose careers were sacrificed to the public interest.
It is consequently only in the present Estimates that the full effect of the new Admiralty policy can be seen. These Estimates are, comparing gross Estimates, over £8,000,000, and comparing net Estimates, nearly £7,000,000 below the Estimates for the current year. But the true comparison, the comparison which brings out the significance of the policy carried out during the last 12 months, is not with the Estimates of the current year, but with the Estimates of the preceding year. Those Estimates marked what, but for the Washington Treaty, would probably have been the lowest point
reached by the Navy Estimates in our generation. They included the first steps in a policy of replacing, by modern capital ships of unlimited power and dimensions, a battle fleet which was rapidly being rendered obsolescent in face of the vast new building programmes of America and Japan. The progress of that policy of replacement would, in spite of every administrative economy and of every saving resulting from the fall in prices, have very soon forced up our net Estimates by another £15,000,000 or £20,000,000.
That was the situation which, in the absence of an agreement at Washington, I should have been compelled to lay before the House of Commons to-day. As it is we have, in barely 12 months, brought down the gross Navy Estimates from £92,000,000 to under £61,500,000, a reduction of over 33⅓ per cent, and the net Estimates from £83,444,000 to £58,000,000, a proportionate reduction of 30 per cent. and an actual reduction of £25,444,000. To achieve so drastic a retrenchment we have had to reduce the personnel of the Fleet. by nearly 20,000 officers and men, and to reduce the personnel of the dockyards by another 10,000 men. We have rendered impotent for fighting purposes and handed over to the shipbreakers 17 splendid and comparatively modern capital ships. We have cut down every reserve of ammunition, of fuel, of stores to the very minimum compatible with our safety. We have postponed and spread out over long periods necessary expenditure which, from the purely Naval point of view, ought to be incurred without delay. We have, in more than one direction, accepted risks which we can only contemplate with serious misgiving. But it is only by these means that we have been able to ensure the striking reductions in the total figures which I have given to the House.
I would commend those figures to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) who, judging by the terms of the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name, seems to think that we have done nothing to bring about a reduction of expenditure or a limitation in naval armaments. I venture, on the contrary, to claim that the figures of these Estimates represent a very substantial contribution to the relief of that burden of taxation under which the industries of
this country are slowly plodding their way back to recovery. They represent, also, from the point of view emphasised in the second part of the hon. Member's Motion, a no less substantial contribution to the cause of world peace. But I am bound also to remind the House that, from the point of view of the Board of Admiralty, they represent a grave responsibility, a responsibility which we have not assumed without anxious deliberation or without the most earnest balancing of all the broad considerations of national and, indeed, of world welfare, which have outweighed the purely technical and professional arguments in favour of a larger measure of insurance against the foreseeable and unforeseeable risks which may beset our existence.
The credit for these figures belongs in the fullest sense to my colleagues, and more particularly to my naval colleagues, on the Board of Admiralty. Without their active concurrence and help at every stage, these far-reaching reductions would either have been utterly impossible or could only have been secured at the cost of wrecking the whole framework and fabric of our naval efficiency. My experience, extending now over three successive series of Naval Estimates, has increasingly confirmed the conviction that the wide measure of financial responsibility which, under our Admiralty system, is vested in the controlling Sea Lords at the head of the great spending Departments of the Admiralty, is fully justified by the true economy achieved. A great Navy can never be otherwise than a costly form of insurance. But this House and the country can, at any rate, rest assured that they are getting full value for the money which they spend on the Navy.
I have spoken of the economies which we have effected as resulting from the Washington Agreement. But it is essential that the House should bear in mind that they not only go far beyond the strict terms of that Agreement, which simply limits the dimensions and armament and, in certain cases, the actual number of our ships of war, and imposes no restriction whatever either -on our personnel or on our expenditure, but also that these economies have been carried out in anticipation of the Treaty and in advance of action by any of the co-signatory Powers. We were under no obliga-
tion to take any action till every signatory Power had ratified the Treaty. We, fact, took action immediately we had subscribed to the Treaty ourselves, before either we ourselves or any other Power had ratified it, and we did so wholeheartedly, committing ourselves irretrievably from the outset to the utmost measure of reduction which that Agreement could justify. In doing so we ran no small risk, I admit. But by our act of faith we have secured for the taxpayer the immediate fruition of great economies which would otherwise have- had to be deferred for something like two years. We have done more than that. We have given an earnest of our good will and an example which, I believe, will prove the determining factor in securing not only the early ratification of the Treaty itself, but its carrying out by all the Powers concerned.
The actual position, I might remind the House, as regards the implementing of the Treaty by other Powers is as follows: It has been ratified by the United States and Japan. It has been passed by both Houses of Parliament in Italy, and only awaits the Royal Assent. We now have every reason to assume that it will come before the French Chambers for ratification at an early date. We, of course, ratified it a long time ago. Of those who have already ratified it, the United States have dismantled or sold seven obsolete ships and are now making financial provision for the cost of breaking up in the coming year—that is, assuming general ratification—the eleven new capital ships designated for scrapping under Treaty on which construction has been suspended, though they do not propose to take action until all concerned have ratified. Japan is similarly holding her hand pending ratification, but has paid off some of her older ships, and has actually removed the armament of five. Both America and Japan have made reductions in personnel, though not on as large a scale as ourselves. Reviewing the whole situation, I think we can safely say that there is every reasonable prospect of the Treaty, not only being ratified, but being carried out effectively in the near future by the only other Powers upon whom it imposes any active obligations.
The main principle by which the limitation of naval armaments was made effective in this Treaty was that of equality in battle strength between the United States and the British Empire, as measured in the individual displacement and gun power and the total tonnage of our capital ships, with a corresponding ratio of approximately three-fifths for the battle strength of Japan. There was no restriction on the numbers or types of other war vessels, in view of the wide difference in the circumstances of each of the Powers, but only a general overhead limitation of individual displacement and gun power, so devised as to differentiate sharply all other types of ships from the great capital ships, which, in the considered opinion of all the Naval Staffs, still constitute the unchallengeable pivot and mainstay of the naval battle. That general principle of limitation was one which we could accept as consistent with the maintenance of the one-power standard—the standard which for us represents the absolute and irreducible minimum of our security—and as at the same time allowing us a. wide latitude for adjusting the organisation of our Navy to our own peculiar needs.
The House will, naturally, wish to know how we have, in fact, interpreted that one-power standard under the Treaty. For that purpose I will invite hon. Members to follow me for a few minutes while I draw a brief comparison between the post-Washington Fleets of the British Empire and of the United States. Of capital ships we have 22 completed and two just laid down, on the completion of which, four years hence, four of our capital ships are to be scrapped. The United States have 18 completed, two of which are destined to be shortly displaced by two ships of the "West Virginia" class now under construction. But, to arrive at true comparisons between the fighting values of these fleets, it is essential to keep in mind the immense difference in fighting power between any ships built before the Battle of Jutland and those which embody the lessons of that great action. Until our two 35,000-ton battleships are completed—and, as I said just now, that will not be for four years—we shall have only one partially post-Jutland ship, the "Hood," as against three on the part of
the United States and two on the part of Japan; while of ships over 30,000 tons we shall have only one, as compared with 10 in the case of the United States and six in the case of Japan. Of cruisers and light cruisers we have 45 completed, or 50 if we include the Dominion Navies, as against 20 on the part of the United States; and four building as against nine. Of aircraft carriers we have five built and two being reconstructed, while the United States have one completed and two being reconstructed from the hulls of their battle cruisers. Of destroyers and flotilla leaders we have 188—or 201 including the Dominions—built and five building, as compared with 316 on the part of the United States. Of submarines, we have 57 built—or 65 including the Dominions—and four building, as compared with 99 built and 29 building on the part of the United States. In fact, while stronger in light cruisers and aircraft carriers—the inevitable consequence of our far more scattered territories and trade interests—we are very markedly inferior in destroyers and in submarines.
When it comes to ships actually in full commission, we maintain 15 capital ships as against 18, 37 cruisers as against 10, 65 destroyers and flotilla leaders as against 109, and 39 submarines as against 73. A more general standard of comparison is afforded by our respective totals of personnel and expenditure. The total personnel provided for in these Estimates, excluding coastguards, is 99,500. The total corresponding figure for the United States Navy for the coming year is 116,400, though this includes some 5,000 officers and men doing naval air work, as against only 1,140 borne provisionally on these Estimates for that. purpose. The American Navy Estimates for the coming year, excluding naval aviation and certain non-effective items, amount to nearly 320,000,000 dollars, or, at the current rate of exchange, about £68,350,000. Our corresponding Estimate for the same items of effective expenditure is £50,600,000.

Mr. HARRIS: Is not the cost of production in ships arid wages greater in the United States?

Mr. AMERY: I know, but the difference is very much greater still between our figures. I think it is clear, from the comparison I have given, that, so far from
importing into our maintenance of the one-power standard a spirit of keen and jealous competition, we have, on the contrary, interpreted that standard with a latitude which can only be justified by our desire to avoid provoking competition in armaments and by our conception of the special relationship of good will and mutual understanding which exists between ourselves and the United States. It is with the same latitude that we have also dealt with the problem of the balance of naval power as compared with Japan in Far Eastern and Pacific waters, spreading out over a long number of years the preparations in respect of oil fuel bases and the improvement of docking facilities which, if we feared any serious divergence of policy, let alone the possibility of actual conflict, we should be bound to press forward and carry into effect immediately.
I may be asked by hon. Members opposite why, if we contemplate no conflict, or even friction, with the great naval Powers which I have named, should we attempt, in our present difficult financial position, to aim even at equality? The German fleet is at the bottom of Scapa Flow; we have no other immediate menace to fear; why should not we drop quietly, for a time at any rate, into the second or third place? I would ask hon. Members, do they really think that it is possible for us, of all nations—we who have everything at stake on the sea—even in times of profoundest peace, even when the horizon seems fairest, to run the risk of being obviously and demonstrably inferior to any other Power, however friendly that Power may be? There is no certainty in the domain of international affairs. The clearest sky may be suddenly overclouded, and nations may be swept from their peaceful course by a storm which has sprung up almost without warning. Rut one thing is certain. A great -Navy, once let clown, cannot be re-improvised in an emergency. It is not only that the ships take years to build; the training and instinct required to handle that amazing complex of mechanism, a modern battleship, need a generation to teach. Is there any Government, whatever its political complexion, which could afford to gamble with our whole existence on the probability of perpetual world peace? We,
at any rate, are not prepared to run that risk or to incur that terrible responsibility.
As a matter of fact, if we did contemplate the contingency of serious difference with any other Power in the near future, we should certainly not be justified in resting content with a one-power standard, or one interpreted in so easy-going a spirit. We have never done so before. During the years of rivalry and contention between ourselves and the Russo-French Alliance at the end of the last century, we laid down as our general guiding standard that of two Powers to one—a two-power standard. More than that, we took good care to interpret that two-power standard so as to give ourselves a very substantial margin of strength over the combined forces of any possible adversaries. That margin preserved the peace when the sudden crisis arose over Fashoda in 1898. A year later it saved us from the possibility—by no means a remote possibility—of joint German, French and Russian intervention in the South African War. When the menace of German naval ambitions displaced the older rivalry with France and Russia, we fixed that margin at a 60 per cent. superiority in capital ships. Will anyone suggest to-day that we ought to have fixed it at a lower margin?
If, then, we do dispense with such a margin, if we are content with an easy equality, it is just because there are no underlying rivalries or conflicts of purpose which could bring a war within the zone of reasonable probability in the near future, and because there is a widespread desire for peace and for relief from the burden of armaments, which we, on our part, have done everything by our example to encourage. But there is a limit to the risk we can afford to run by weakening ourselves in order to promote peace—if, indeed, we do promote peace by going beyond that limit—and we have reached it. I should be failing in my duty to this House and to the country if I suggested the possibility of further reductions in our strength in succeeding years. On the contrary, I must ask the House to keep clearly in mind that these are exceptional Estimates, framed to meet an exceptional financial situation, and that the economies which we have achieved are, in part, at any rate, due to the postponement of necessary ex-
penditure which will have to be made up with the return of more normal conditions.
No part of the task of carrying through this scheme of reduction has been so difficult and painful as that which has been concerned with the cutting down of personnel. The terms of compensation for loss of career and prospects which we fixed for officers and men have, I think, been generally regarded as meeting the case fairly, and even generously, in so far as money compensation can ever meet such a case. We offered these terms in the first instance for voluntary acceptance, hoping in this way to discover those to whom the compensation might, for one reason or another, be a real inducement to leave, and so reduce compulsory discharges to a minimum. As regards the men, we, to a very large extent, attained our object. Of 12,250 men to be discharged, all except 550 have applied voluntarily. That we have been compelled, in the last few weeks of the financial year, to select even 550 for compulsory discharge is in itself regrettable, but the relative figures for voluntary and compulsory discharges prove that our terms did in the main appeal to the men.
As regards officers, the terms have appealed to about two-thirds of the total of 2,000 who will have left by the end of the financial year, but this has been mainly in the warrant officer class and in the non-executive branches. Among executive officers the reduction has had to be made almost entirely by compulsory selection. The lists had already been most drastically weeded out by previous reductions, and there had been practically no inferior officers left to eliminate. The task with which the Board of Admiralty have been confronted has been the anxious and truly invidious task of scrutinising records in order to find some way of deciding who among officers of high ability and distinguished service could be said to be even a shade behind their fellows. It was impossible that selection carried out under such conditions should not give rise to heartburning and disappointment; but it does speak well for the patient care and fairness with which the Sea Lords have carried out their painful task that their verdict has been so generally accepted.
A period of cutting down such as we have just passed through is not only dis-
couraging to the service itself but to those outside who are thinking of joining or allowing their sons to join; but. I believe I can venture to give both to the service and to the parents the assurance that we have reached the limit of possible reduction, and that they need not fear a recurrence of any other such period as that through which the Navy has just passed. As every care has been taken in the present reductions, both as regards officers and men, to avoid creating the possibility of blocks in promotion in future, I think I can say with confidence that the prospects of those who arc now entering the Navy, in all ranks, are as good as they have been in the past.
There is one further item in the reduction of naval personnel to which I ought to make special reference. The coastguard which was transferred from the Board of Customs to the Board of Admiralty in 1856 has, under modern conditions, ceased to be of direct value to the fighting Navy. Except for certain wireless operations, its work has in fact been entirely devoted to purposes for which the Board of Trade and the Board of Customs are responsible. It is obvious that a system under which one Department does the work and pays for it and another Department prescribes what it wants done is not likely to be economical. The change which has now been decided upon, following the recommendations of the Geddes Committee and of the Special Committee which sat under the chairmanship of Sir William Mitchell Thomson, has certainly resulted in a very considerable economy of personnel. In place of 2,925 coastguards under the Admiralty, there will be 352 for the naval shore wireless service, 935 coastguards for life saving service under the Board of Trade, and 450 for the preventive service under the Customs—a total saving of nearly 1,200 men.
There seems to be some apprehension in certain quarters that the efficiency of the coast watching service will suffer by the transfer to the Board of Trade. As the decision of the site of stations has always rested with the Board of Trade, and as the personnel will, in the main, be the same, recruited in the first instance from the present coastguard, and in future from retired naval officers and pensioners, it is not easy to see in what respect the efficiency of the service could really be adversely affected. There are, I know, cer-
tarn difficulties connected with the particular stations which are now being administered for Lloyds by the Admiralty under a contract, but pending a settlement of this difficulty the Admiralty have arranged with the Board of Trade to retain control and management of these stations for a further three months until the end of June.
No legislation will be required for the transfer of the life-saving service to the Board of Trade, though legislation will be necessary to enable the Admiralty formally to divest itself of responsibility in respect of its revenue duties, and to transfer to the Board of Trade power to take over those duties, in so far as at certain points they cannot be carried out by the Board of Customs direct. This need not, however, delay the transfer which is to take place on the 31st March. The existing Coastguard will on that date be discharged with the discharge gratuity to which their services entitle them, plus an additional gratuity as compensation for the curtailment of their naval careers, proportioned to the years of expected service lost. Of this latter gratuity, a portion, in no case exceeding one-half, will have to be refunded on entering the new service of the Board of Trade or the Board of Customs.
As regards the dockyard personnel, we have, I trust, also come, with the last heavy cut of some 10,000 men, to the end of the period of unsettlement and discouragement inevitably consequent upon a period of reduction. Apart from any question of new shipbuilding programmes, there is plenty of work to keep the present staff fully occupied for some years to come, a condition of things which ought to enable us not only to retain our men, but to get the best work out of them. There has already been a very satisfactory improvement in the output of work with the return of more normal and stable conditions. Here, too, the process of reduction has had its painful and anxious side. It has inevitably added to the volume of unemployment, already serious, in the great dockyard centres, which depend almost entirely on Admiralty work for their livelihood, and which consequently felt the full and direct loss resulting from measures of economy, whose countervailing gains will only come back to them slowly and indirectly in the course of a general improvement in our trade condi-
tions. I am glad to say, however, that in connection with the general measures for the relief of unemployment this w inter, the Admiralty were authorised to devote sonic of the unexpended surplus in the current Estimates to taking on about 1.000 unemployed men for work during the last few months.
All these reductions in personnel and in the material strength of our establishments have made it more necessary than ever to devote our attention to those imponderable things that matter even more than numbers or armaments, and take even longer to make good. I mean to education and training, to scientific research, to the sound organisation of our staff work, and the fostering and strengthening of all the great traditions which have made the Navy what it always has been, not only a sure shield, but a quickening and inspiring element in the life of the nation. I have been privileged in the last few months to see something of this inner aspect of the Navy. Two impressions in particular stand out in my mind. One is that of treading the hallowed decks of the Victory—Nelson's flagship, and still the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth—and realising how the spirit of Nelson and the Nelson tradition still pervade and dominate the whole life of the Service. The "Victory" has now been saved from possible disaster by being brought into dock, where she is shored up, and receiving such repairs as are necessary for her salvation. The further task of clearing away the new bows and other superstructure added after 1820 and restoring her to the exact state in which she fought at Trafalgar is one which we feel we cannot, in these difficult times, treat as a strictly naval requirement, to be paid for out of Navy Estimates. We can only hope that the appeal which Admiral Sturdee is making to the patriotic generosity of the public throughout the Empire will meet with a sufficient response. The House is already aware that one anonymous well-wisher of the Navy has made a splendid gift of £50,000 towards the £150,000 required.
My other impression, at the very opposite end of the historical scale, is that of the Cadets at Dartmouth, the boys who are destined to carry on and develop, under new conditions, the great traditions of the past. I do not think it would be possible to find anywhere a finer training
school, a better all-round education of mind, spirit, and body, amid more beautiful and inspiring surroundings, or a keener, manlier lot of boys than are to be found there. The noble building which has taken the place of the old Britannia has, thanks to the intimate collaboration of naval officers and public schoolmasters to give it each of their best, truly become what Milton wished his ideal school to be —a place where young men are
stirred up with high hopes of living to be brave men and worthy patriots, dear to God; where they shall have an abundance of exercises, which shall keep them healthy, nimble, strong and well in breath; which, being tempered with precepts of true fortitude and patience, will turn into a national valour, and make them hate the cowardice of doing wrong.
I have specially mentioned Dartmouth, but my impression of all the naval educational establishments and specialist schools, whether for officers or men, is the same. There is everywhere the same adaptation of the traditions of the past to the imperative needs of modern science; the same simple, direct spirit fearlessly tackling the immense complexities and responsibilities of the problem of the future. The sailor's life is one continuous process of education in technical proficiency as well as in responsibility. The one danger is that the demands of the teacher and specialist may encroach too much upon the time given, especially in youth, to what, after all, remains the foundation of all things in a great Navy, the understanding and love of the sea. After all, in the last resort, it is not science alone that counts in the critical moment, but science at the disposal of the quick eye and the instant decision, in the teeth it may he of a bitter gale or in the appalling and bewildering conditions of a great battle.
5.0 P.M.
I do not think that anyone who has not been brought into direct contact with the problems of a modern navy can realise the technical transformation which has been wrought in recent years, a transformation which has been immensely accelerated by the experience of the late War. The Navy of to-day and to-morrow is almost as different from the Navy of 20 years ago as that Navy was from the Navy of the old sailing ship days. The development of wireless, of mining and
counter-mining, of submarine attack and defence, of aviation—all these things have transformed the work, and with it the organization of the Navy. It is the failure to realise this that has been responsible for some of the criticism of "shore establishments," as if these were unnecessary accretions to the active work of the Fleet, places of refuge in which superfluous officers and men are tucked away and draw their pay while waiting for something to do. On the contrary, these establishments are training schools and research establishments of the most intensive character, and are indispensable to the efficiency of the Navy under modern conditions. No part of the money we are spending in these Estimates is better spent than that which is devoted to them, and the relative increase in the sums spent on Votes 5 and 6, the Educational and Scientific Services in the total Estimates, to-day, as compared with pre-War figures, is, I confidently claim, evidence of the truest economy, of the determination to achieve the greatest future results from the minimum of total expenditure in the present.
It is this same profound difference in the character of the post-War Navy that accounts in no small measure for the difference in central organisation which is reflected in Vote 12. The increase in that Vote over pre-War figures is, of course, due in large measure to the great increase in salaries and wages which applies to the Civil Service generally. It is in part due to the clearing up of the post-War financial situation to which has to be added the heavy extra work of carrying through the programme of reductions. It is also in part due to extra duties imposed upon the Admiralty by Parliament. Marriage allowances, welfare development, Whitley Councils, Naval voting—all these things are good in themselves, no doubt, but they involve a great amount of extra work, which is necessarily reflected in the numbers and cost of the Admiralty staff. It is due even more to the increasing complexity of modern warfare. Every new weapon, every new electrical or mechanical device has to be dealt with in the Admiralty on its technical merits. But it does not stand by itself. It affects design and construction. It affects tactics and training, it raises a score of new problems which
someone has to work out. To starve the thinking Departments which have to deal with these problems and whose right conclusions on these problems may make the difference between the saving and the waste of tens of millions, would, surely, be the height of unwisdom.
In many ways we suffered in the late War as the result of inadequate headquarters' staff organization, and for us to set up our admitted inadequacy of those days as the ideal to which we should revert in post-War times would be to flout every lesson of experience. These Estimates are, in the main, not the work of politicians or of buraucrats, but of practical sailors; of men imbued with the conviction that the strength of the Service is the ship; who think in terms of the naval battle and not of the office stool. If they in their endeavour to secure the very maximum of fighting efficiency for a given sum of money have decided that they have carried out all the reductions in the staff of the Admiralty which present conditions allow of, we may presume, not unreasonably, that their judgment in this respect is not less sound or less unprejudiced than in regard to any other Votes comprised in these Estimates.
Some brief references are made in the memorandum, supplemental to my explanatory statement, to the activities of the Navy during the current year. I need not expand these now, except in regard to one or two points. I think the House will be glad to know that the visit of the "Hood" and "Repulse" to Rio de Janeiro, on the occasion of the Brazilian centenary celebrations last autumn, was an unqualified success. The impression created by the appearance of those two splendid ships was great in itself. But it was surpassed by the impression created by the bearing and conduct of our officers and men, who not only showed themselves to be good sportsmen—they gained nine firsts out of 15 athletic events—but gentlemen, who realised that they wore each and all responsible for the credit of their country. I sincerely hope that this good impression may not be allowed to he obliterated and fade away, but that in one way or another the Navy may regain more frequent touch with the prosperous and progressive nations of the South American Continent.
The most important and significant part of the Navy's work in the past year has been in connection with the events in the Near East. I would remind the House that it, was thanks to the presence of the Navy and the authority exercised by our Commanders that the evacuation of Smyrna was successfully carried out, and that in barely a fortnight, working in conjunction with the United States, nearly 200,000 Greek and Armenian refugees were safely got away. When the subsequent crisis in our relations with Turkey arose, the Mediterranean Fleet was rapidly reinforced and concentrated in Turkish waters. An improvised battalion of Marines was at once despatched to Constantinople to reinforce the Army, large numbers of guns were mounted and manned by the Navy at the Dardanelles, and large parties of seamen landed to help the Army in digging trenches at Chanak. The pressure of military and naval power in conjunction has never been exercised for the preservation of peace more efficaciously than it was during those critical weeks.
The temporary reinforcement of the Mediterranean fleet is, however, I believe, only the first step in our gradual return to a more normal distribution of the Navy after the abnormal concentration in home waters imposed on us by the development of that German menace. The main task of the Navy is, after all, not to act as coastguard to the United Kingdom, but to keep open everywhere the seas whose freedom is our very life-breath and the condition of our existence as an Empire. The distribution of the Navy must depend on the strategic circumstances of any given time. But the Navy must be free to go anywhere. It is not free to go anywhere to-day owing to the fact that we have neither supplies of oil nor the docking and repairing facilities required to give it the necessary mobility. We can at present neither send our battle fleet to the Far East nor maintain it there.
It is to remedy that situation that we are gradually building up our chain of oil reserves at the various strategic points on our ocean routes, and that we are now making a beginning on a very small scale with the necessary preparations for eventually creating at Singapore a Naval base capable of dealing with the requirements of a fleet of modern capital ships.
At present there is no dock in British territory in the East capable of taking a capital ship. The Washington Treaty precludes us from expanding and developing Hong Kong, and, as a matter of fact, the position of Singapore on the direct route to the Far East and on the flank of our commercial and strategic line of communications with Australia is naturally the one best suited for our purpose. It is for us almost what the Panama Canal is to the United States, our gateway to the Pacific. The ultimate development of this base, with the necessary graving docks and locks, workshops and stores, will cost some £11,000,000, but this will be spread over a long period of years. Only £200,000 in all will be required in the present Estimates for preparatory work, and only comparatively small sums in the near future.
There is in this, of course, no suggestion of any difficulties in our relations with Japan. On the contrary, if there were even an apprehension of such difficulties we should not be dealing in such leisurely fashion with what is an indispensable prerequisite of any strategic action in the Pacific. We are simply carrying out at our own time a measure essential to the performance by the Fleet of its proper function in Imperial defence. We have often in the past in appealing to the Dominions to co-operate more effectively in the naval defence of the Empire reminded them that their destiny might be settled by an action in the North Sea. It is equally necessary for us to remember that our destiny may in the future, as in our past history, depend on what happens in the most distant seas of the world. I want to insist more particularly on this point, that our existence depends on the freedom of the Navy to keep open the seas of the world, because it has been so largely obscured by the impressions of the late War. The Navy did keep them open for us and closed to our enemies, and this was the main cause of our winning the War. But because it happened to do so in and from the North Sea we are apt to fall into the mistake of thinking that the chief task of the Navy was to hold the narrow seas.
And this leads to the even more serious error of supposing that because the local problem of the defence of the narrow seas has been profoundly affected, as it
has, by the development of aviation, that the importance of the Navy has thereby been diminished in our scheme of defence, or even that aerial defence is in some way or other destined to supersede naval defence. The importance of the air is bound to develop enormously and will increasingly affect our social and economic life as well as the problems of our defence. But that will not alter the fundamental physical and mechanical fact that the surface between water and air will always remain the plane in which the greatest weight—and consequently the greatest potential offensive and defensive strength—can be propelled the greatest distance with the least expenditure of effort. The sea will always remain the chief base of world wide mobile power. But undoubtedly the effective exercise of sea-power itself will be profoundly influenced by the use of the new weapon of the air.
How this can best be done is a question on which, as the House is, of course, perfectly aware, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry have taken different views. The Air Ministry hold—I trust I am not misrepresenting their views—that as the air is one continuous element the concentration and unification of all forms of air warfare under a single control will lead to the greatest efficiency. The Admiralty is not concerned with laying down so broad a general principle. It does not claim control, for instance, over air operations conducted over the sea from shore bases, or wish to revive the old Naval Air Service. But it claims that the naval air work which is directly a part of the naval battle, which is based on the fighting fleet itself, is so vital and integral a part of work of the Navy, so identical in its essential characteristics with the work done by the other naval weapons which contribute to the same result, that it can be most effectively done only as part of the same Service. This difference of points of view affecting two great Services can only be settled by the kind of inquiry which the Prime Minister has announced. It is to be hoped, in the interests of the efficiency of both Services, that it will be settled with the least possible delay.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: How many inquiries have we already had on this subject?

Mr. AMERY: We have not had the inquiry promised last year. The idea was to find out if it were possible to settle the matter by adjustment. The experience of the year has shown that it is not so, and the necessary inquiry is now to be held, I believe, with all possible dispatch.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: Why did the Admiralty get rid of the Naval Air Service?

Mr. AMERY: I had very much rather not enter into that question. It is to be discussed on the Air Estimates. I apologise for having gone so far in mentioning the fact that there is this difference of point of view. I must apologise to the House also if I have detained hon. Members too long. I have endeavoured to .give a true picture of the present position of the Navy and of its part in the general policy of the Government. We are pledged to economy. I believe these Estimates fully honour that pledge. We are pledged to maintain peace if we can. Our endeavour has been in the naval policy on which these Estimates are based to go to the utmost lengths in promoting the mutua1 easing off of naval armaments and of the suspicions which those armaments are apt to engender, without creating an even graver danger to our peace and to our very existence by leaving ourselves defenceless at sea. What the Navy means to us has been summed up far better than I could do it, and more impartially, as coming from a great citizen of another country—I mean the late Mr. Page—in one of his letters which I was reading only a day or two ago—
The British Fleet, in fact, is a subject that stands alone in power and value. Since over and over again it has saved these islands when nothing else could have saved them, and since during this War in particular it Las saved the world from German conquest … it lies in their reverence and their gratitude and their abiding convictions as a necessary and perpetual shield so long as Great Britain shall endure. … It is not only a fact with a great and saving history, it is also a sacred tradition and an article of faith.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Whether we agree with the First Lord or not, we always know that in introducing the Naval Estimates he will enlighten the House with a polished, lucid and eloquent utterance, and this afternoon has been no exception to the rule. To me the most gratifying portion of his speech was that all the
powers which signed the Washington Conference were taking active steps to ratify and carry out the agreement arrived at.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: They are not.

Mr. LAMBERT: The First Lord told us that America, Italy, France and Japan were taking such steps. If the hon. Member has other information, he will give it to the House.

Sir G. KINLOCH-COOKE: I will.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I go on without interruption? The hon. Member is always interrupting. I know the source of the interruption. May I suggest to the First Lord that these comparisons of British naval strength with the naval strength of the United States are somewhat ill-timed. I do not think Britain wants to measure its naval strength with the United States. The United States of America has shown itself to be a firm friend of the old country in the late War. I cannot imagine that it would ever be the policy of His Majesty's Government to build against the United States, and therefore I deplore these comparisons of numbers of ships and numbers of personnel between the United States of America and Britain. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an easy equality, really we must face facts. If the United States likes to build a bigger navy than Britain, she can afford to do so.

Mr. AMERY: indicated dissent.

Mr. LAMBERT: When the taxation of this country is £10 13s. per head, and in the United States, a richer country, only £6 per head, I do not think the facts need much elaboration. But I must say the. First Lord sent a cold shiver down my back when he told us there was an end of the reduction in naval expenditure. I hope not, for naval expenditure to-day is very high. The First Lord has told us we have made great reductions as compared with two years ago. I submit that that is not a true comparison. You have to go back to pre-War figures. The German Fleet was then in being. Now it is at the bottom of the sea. The gross Estimate in 1914 was about:£50,000,000. The gross Estimate to-day is £61,000,000—an increase. Yet, for all that, the personnel of the Navy has been decreased from 146,000 in 1914 to
103,000 in this year's Estimates. The First Lord and the Board of Admiralty have my most profound sympathy inasmuch as they have had to retrench so many fine officers and men of the naval service. There can be no more invidious, no more disagreeable duty than to retrench these splendid officers and men who have had to leave the Service to which they were devoted. But there is one consolation I am sure they will have, a queer kind of consolation—that is, that the civilian element of the Navy has not been proportionately decreased. The Secretary to the Admiralty gave me some information the other day about the officials at the Admiralty and outdoor establishments. In July, 1914, there were employed at the Admiralty 2,072 officials at a cost of £514,000. On 1st February this year that 2,072 had been increased to 3,698 at a cost of £1,339,000. Take the dockyards. Heaven knows I do not want to create misery at the dockyards. It is a grave problem. Still, at the dockyards in 1914 there were 57,000. To-day, with the German Fleet at the bottom of the sea, with an enormously reduced naval personnel, there are 61,627 employed. These figures will bear some reduction.
Last year the First Lord was very critical of the Board of Admiralty and its organisation in pre-War days, and he complained that there were not enough typists there, the Sea Lords had to write their own minutes, and there was not a sufficiency of accounting officers. I was a member of that Board of Admiralty. In pre-War days there were at the Admiralty administrators like Mr. McKenna, who now is the head of a great bank, and there were dull, sleepy, torpid men like Mr. Churchill and Lord Fisher, people with no ginger in them. These were the men who submitted to this staff which was so inefficient, or not sufficiently numerous. Then he talked to us about the accounts. I remember the accounts being presented to the Public Accounts Committee for 10 or 12 years. There was never any fault found. The Public Accounts Committee often complimented the Admiralty. Today you have a larger number of officials, but I doubt if you have the same efficiency. The largo number of people you employ is no test, of the efficiency of the work they do.
The First Lord talked about the staff. That again depends. We all agree that there should be a thinking Department at the Admiralty, but it depends on the First Lord and on the Sea Lord. There was a very distinguished First Sea Lord, Sir Arthur Wilson, who did not think of having a staff. The great lesson I learned at any rate from the War was that the naval and the military strategists should not be interfered with by the civilian strategists. It was the civilian more than the naval strategists who were the cause of so many disasters. I could give many instances. Whatever staff you have, it all depends how the conclusions of the staff are worked out, and how they are carried out. God forbid we should ever talk of a future war. but I hope if we ever have a future war it will he the naval and the military officers, and probably the air officers, too, who will control strategic operations, and not the civilians.
The First Lord alluded to the Air, and I should like to say a few words from a naval and general point of view on the present state, not of organisation but of disorganisation. No one can say the Air Services of the Admiralty are not positively disorganised at present. Any Air Service with which the Navy is connected must be exercised with the Fleet, must be under the command of naval officers and must be in daily contact with the ships. You might as well say you could put submarines and destroyers under another command as deprive the Admiralty of its Air Service. To-day we have three Departments. I do not think it is possible that we can go on like it. I am certain when the First. Lord talks about a one-power standard, to-day we have not a ball-power standard because of the lack of one efficient weapon—that is aircraft. There is no doubt about it. There roust be harmonious working between the three Services if we are to become efficient. Whether the future is to be on the surface of the water, whether it is to be aircraft or scacraft I cannot say, but it is greatly to he deplored that you have this friction existing now between the Admiralty and the Air Service. I hope that the Commission of Inquiry which is to be held will be a strong authoritative Commission which will bring about harmonious working in the great Services. I
would say to the First Lord of the Admiralty "see how much things have changed." Before the War and during the War the Admiralty could guarantee the safety of this country against invasion. They cannot do it to-day. That is one of the points that have arisen since the War.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Do you mean a raid or an invasion?

Mr. LAMBERT: I mean an invasion by foreign troops or aircraft. The meaning of invasion is well known. If an enemy comes into the, country that is an invasion.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is the Tight hon. Gentleman afraid that troops might be landed from ships by foreign navies on these shores?

Mr. LAMBERT: No, I imagine that the Navy would prevent surface ships bringing soldiers to these shores, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Navy cannot prevent to-day, say, the bombing of London by hostile aircraft. That is a very important fact. If London be bombed or devastated by gas, is not that an invasion?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman is out of order, but I would remind him that the general sense of the House, as to the relations between the Admiralty and Air Force is that, they should be taken on a Debate on the Air Estimates.

Mr. LAMBERT: Quite so. I will simply say that the conditions have changed. In days gone by the Admiralty could guarantee us against invasion; today they cannot. The Admiralty to-day have to consider what is the possibilities of aircraft, and if it is possible to destroy the naval dockyards. Has the First Lord taken into consideration the question of air defence or the defence of Chatham against foreign aircraft? We heard a great deal some time ago about Pembroke Dockyard being an out of work relief depot. I am not sure that I agree. Chatham is very much more within the bombing area, yet the Admiralty to-day are spending money now in improving Chatham. I should hate to think that this town, which has grown up with naval money around the dockyard, may have to be turned to another use, but we cannot
get away from the fact that Chatham to-day is within the bombing area of the Continent and is one of our naval bases.
Now as to Singapore. We are to have there new a dockyard of very large dimensions costing £11,000,000. Possibly that will be developed more properly later on, but I must ask for some information now. My right hon. Friend says that we have no dock for a capital ship on British oversea territory, yet we are building capital ships though we have got no docks for them in the East. We are to build this dockyard at our leisure. There is no menace from Japan or any other Power, and we can go on taking our own time. It may be that when this leisurely built dockyard is completed it will be entirely out of date. Most probably it will. Have the Dominions been consulted in this matter? It is a Dominion matter. We shall, I. hope, get the Opposition to ask some very pertinent questions as to whether it is wise for this country to establish an enormous new base, probably larger than any British naval base to-day, so far from our shores.
I think that that is a very serious thing indeed. How arc you going to supply this naval base? How is it going to be kept in touch with Britain, thousands of miles away? How will you, in face of submarines and aircraft, which will be more developed in future, keep up communications between the Mother Country and Singapore? I have thought much about it, and I do not understand how it is going to be done. I would suggest larger co-operation between the Admiralty and Air Force, and between the Admiralty and the brains of the Air Force. The Admiralty have erected all over the world enormous gasometers. Have they considered the defence of these larger numbers of establishments? Is it not easy for a submarine to come along and, with a few well directed shots, blow up the lot?

Viscount CURZON: The "Emden" tried, and failed.

Mr. LAMBERT: If these oil fuel depots in the East are to be of use there must be a very formidable naval guard there. Have the Admiralty considered this when spending this enormous sum of money? I hope that they will give us the amount spent on establishing these oil fuel depots,
if not in detail at any rate in the aggregate. Are we getting value for our money? We cannot get value for any money unless we consider the air defence of the Admiralty establishments with the naval vote as a whole. To my mind it is a most abhorrent thing to imagine future wars. We had a gruesome list in the Press this morning of the number of killed. and the amount of treasure wasted, in the late horrible war, and the greatest guarantee of peace would be by a league of peaceful nations, but if we are to have fighting forces they must be prepared for the eventuality of war. I ask, therefore, that there shall be co-operation between the three services, so that we may secure full value for the taxpayers' money. That is the duty of the House of Commons. Whatever the First Lord may say, that money is not spent to the best advantage now. I will not enter further into the question of the air and the Admiralty, though it is a very important question, but I do ask the House of Commons to scrutinise very vigilantly these Estimates, for I am certain that, without the cooperation which I have named, we shall be wasting an enormous sum of public money.

RETRENCHMENT.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House regrets that the sum proposed to be spent on the Naval Services during the coming financial year is not consistent with the pledges of retrenchment given by His Majesty's Government, and makes no approach to a redemption of the war-time promises of a great reduction in expenditure on armaments to follow an Allied victory; and further calls upon the Government to use its influence to summon, as soon as possible, an international conference to which all States, whether members of the League of Nations or not, should be invited, with a view to considering the extension of the principles of the Washington Treaty for the limitation of naval armaments to all non-signatory States.
The failure of the capitalist system to provide an accommodating railway service from the North prevented me from being in the House at Question Time, and at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I understand that protest was made against the inadequate time which is being provided for the
general discussion of these Estimates. Had I been present I certainly would have joined in that protest. We have got but two and a half hours for the discussion of the Amendment which I now move and the general Debate. In those circumstances, in fairness to other hon. Members who want to take part in the discussion, I shall try to compress my observations into the shortest possible pace. The fortune of the Ballot has placed on me the task of trying to discharge a duty which I am not competent to perform. If I were to undergo an examination into the relative value and use of battleships, battle cruisers and destroyers, I am afraid I should prove to be a lamentable failure. Therefore I do not intend to touch upon any of these details which made up a great part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but there are questions of general administration and policy connected with naval affairs and administration upon which I think a layman is entitled to express an opinion. I confine myself, therefore, to dealing with these general principles.
I remember the Debates which took place on the Naval Estimates in the March before the outbreak of war. They were unusually important and, shall I say, interesting. At that time Mr. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, a post in which his brilliant imagination and pugnacious proclivities found ample scope for exercise. He has told us recently that for 15 months before the outbreak of war he was engaged perpetually at the Admiralty in discussing the details of a naval war with Germany. That is a curious comment upon the statement, which was made so often during the War, that it came upon this innocent country quite unexpectedly, and found us inadequately prepared. In two or three years before the outbreak of war there had been a considerable increase in the annual expenditure upon the Navy. The Estimates for 1914 were something like £50,000,000, but in the 10 years before this rapid increase began, that is to say from 1900 to 1910, the average expenditure upon the Navy was about £33,000,000. Why had there been this increase?
Undoubtedly the reason was the menace of the increasing German Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty has just pointed out that that menace no longer exists. The War was fought to destroy
what was said to be the only menace to the peace of the world. The German Navy has gone and the German Army has been reduced to the dimensions of a police force. Therefore, I ask why, in the fifth year after the signing of the Armistice, the First Lord of the Admiralty should be asking this House to Vote a gross sum of over £60,000,000 for the maintenance of the Navy? I see that the Army Estimates are published this afternoon. If we take the Navy Estimates, the Air Estimates and the Army Estimates together, we find that the Government are asking for the fighting Services this year a sum of £125,000,000. The father of Mr. Winston Churchill once resigned the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer because he would not share responsibility for a total Budget expenditure of £90,000,000. Before the outbreak of War, the War which was to end war and to relieve nations for the future from the intolerable burden of military and naval expenditure, the total of the fighting services, in 1913, was a little over £80,000,000. To-day we are being asked to provide a sum which, in the aggregate, is 50 per cent, more than the expenditure on the fighting Services in the year before the outbreak of the War.
We have a right to know why this is being done. Is there still a menace? If so, where? It surely cannot be the United States of America, with whose Navy, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has made comparison. The United States called the Washington Conference, and the President and Mr. Secretary Hughes made eloquent speeches in which, speaking on behalf of the people of the United States, they expressed the most friendly sentiments towards this country, and expressed a desire for a very considerable reduction in armaments and the end of competition in naval expenditure. It cannot, therefore, be the United States of America. There are in the world only five Powers which can be called naval powers. They are America, this country, France, Japan, and, in a lesser degree, Italy. Where is the menace? It cannot be France, for France is our Ally; an eternal friendship has been cemented between the two countries by common sacrifice in the field of war. We cannot, therefore, be maintaining huge military expenditure for fear of the French Navy. Is it Italy? Italy is our Ally. Is it Japan? I was very much impressed by the references made
by the right hon. Gentleman to the proposal to spend enormous sums of money on the establishment of a base in the Pacific, a base which he said was to accommodate a fleet of battleships. Why? The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary for the purpose of Imperial defence, that the water-way to the Pacific must be kept open. But who is going to menace the free passage of the Pacific? The Pacific can cease to be free only when we are at war with some power. Where is the menace? The right hon. Gentleman referred to Japan. Japan is our Ally; Japan was represented at the Washington Conference, and she signed the Washington Agreement, although I believe that she has not yet ratified it. She apparently had not done so when this Memorandum was presented, for the statement is made that none of the signatory powers to the Treaty had yet ratified it.

Mr. AMERY: Ratification and carrying out by statute.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very serious question there, about which I may have something more to say before I sit down. My present criticism is this: We are asked in these Estimates to provide a gross expenditure of £60,000,000, which is considerably higher than the highest Estimate that was asked for before the outbreak of War, even at a time when Mr. Winston Churchill, on his own confession, was engaged every day in preparing plans for a naval war against Germany. In addition to that, we have the expenditure on the Air Force, a new organisation since that time, and £50,000,000 for the Army. The Motion I have moved begins by saying that the expenditure is inconsistent with the promises by the Government to secure national economy. There can be no doubt at all about the very serious burden that this military and naval expenditure places on the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking two or three days ago in the country, held out very little hope of any remission of taxation unless further economies in expenditure could be carried out. Hon. Friends who sit behind me have, in the last week or two, brought forward proposals for increased expenditure upon urgent social reforms, and in every case, on every Motion, some Member of the Government has risen to
say that, however desirable the reform might be, it was impossible to support it because of the additional expenditure that would be incurred. We are not prepared to take Dreadnoughts for widows' pensions, for better old age pensions, and for other much-needed social reforms. We are spending this £125,000,000 this year. I do not know why or for what, and I shall wait with the greatest interest to know the answer to the questions I have asked. I repeat, where is the monace? Where is the threat of war? The First Lord of the Admiralty has told us, in effect, that in the reductions which ho has made this year "we have accepted risks which we regard with serious misgiving." Why "with serious misgiving"? At a later stage of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not anticipate an immediate further outbreak of hostilities; there might be peace for ten years. Is it proposed, in the next ten years, to prepare for that possible contingency?
The Motion which I have submitted suggests an alternative to all this, a definite line of departure and a new policy—not altogether a new policy, but a carrying out of the policy which the country was led to believe was to be the policy of Governments in future, following Allied victory. We cannot afford this enormous expenditure. In support of my statement, let me quote this from a pronouncement made by the Supreme Council in March of last year. They said:
In order to diminish the economic difficulties of Europe, Armies should forthwith be reduced to a peace footing, armaments should be limited to the lowest possible figure compatible with national security, and the League of Nations should be invited to examine proposals to that effect.
The Financial Committee appointed by the Supreme Council, when meeting at Brussels, recommended most urgently to the Council of the League the desirability of conferring at once and agreeing with the several Governments, with a view to securing a general reduction of the crushing burden which now saddles the resources of the nations and imperils their recovery from the ravages of war. What were the expectations held out by the Versailles Treaty? I want especially to call attention to Article 8 of the Covenant of the League. The first paragraph of that Article says:
The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action or international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments
6.0 P.M.
This country is a member of the League of Nations. It has its representative upon the Council. He is, I suppose, no mean influence on that Council. I ask the Government, what has been done by the representative of the British Government upon the Council of the League to bring into effect that declaration in the Covenant of the, League of Nations? Part of my Resolution suggests that something practical should be done on those lines. We know that expenditure has not come down, and that is why we are asking that the policy should be changed. There are three main reasons why war-time expectations have not been realised, and why we are spending so much more to-day while others of the Allied Powers are doing the same. References have already been made this afternoon to the enormous expenditure by France on her Air Service. Last week I put a question which was answered by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty requesting the figures of French naval expenditure, and I find that in the year 1913 France spent about 530,000,000 francs while the Estimates before the French Senate at present are providing for double that sum. I am quite ready to concede to the right hon. Gentleman, that in his position of responsibility he cannot ignore such things. I am quite ready to concede that naval policy, military policy, and air policy, so far as one nation is concerned, must be determined to a very great extent by what other nations are doing, but granting that we are driven to this position—that international action is necessary to bring about a different policy and secure a reduction of these crushing burdens. The three main reasons for the present expenditure are, I think, as follows. First, there is fear and the desire for security; second, there is Imperialism and the burden which Imperial responsibilities impose; third, there are private financial and commercial interests in war.
Let me speak about the first of these, namely, fear and the desire for security. The existence of armaments is the cause of that fear. Fear compels a nation to build more armaments; and the nation feared build more armaments. There is no security in a policy like that. As a matter of fact, the policy of trying to get, security through armaments defeats its very purpose. There is only one way in which you can guarantee security, and that is by the nations not having the instruments of war and thus removing the menace. Otherwise you are going round in a vicious circle and you always get back to the same point from which you started. The nations in pursuing this policy, through fear and a desire of security, never get security, and their fears are never abated. It is like the story of the missionary who interviewed the native and told the native he had come to civilise him, and the first step in civilisation was to teach him to work. "But why should I work?" said the native. "Oh," said the missionary, "in order that you should get rich." "And why should I get rich?" asked the native. "So that you may not have to work," said the missionary. "Then," said the native, "why should I take all that trouble to get back where I am now?" That is precisely what the nations arc doing, in piling up armaments as a so-called guarantee against the menace of insecurity.
The second point concerns Imperialism and the safeguarding of Imperial responsibility. Here I may be permitted to return to the subject of Japan. I am all for Empire development, especially the full development of, and the closest possible unity between, those parts of the Empire which are inhabited by the people of our own race. I can imagine nothing more fatal, not only to the maintenance of the British Empire, but to world peace, than the carrying out of an ideal which seems to be held by some advocates of imperial development, namely, the building of a wall around the British Empire preventing any other nation from having commercial intercourse with the Empire or sending its goods within that Imperial Zollverein, and also preventing the products of the Empire going to other countries. If we are to pursue a policy like that, then we are certain to arouse the anger and the opposition in every nation in the world against us, and as
sure as to-morrow's sun will rise, that will lead us to a world war of a devastating character so great that the horrors of the late war will be insignificant in comparison. I am opposed to that kind of Imperialism and that kind of Empire unity. That is one of the greatest causes for naval armaments and what is regarded as the need for protection against the possibility of war. The right hon. Gentleman talked about keeping trade routes and about discharging our Imperial responsibility. Well, but honest trade needs no Dreadnoughts. The honest trader needs no policeman.
A great part of the necessary natural resources of the world have been appropriated by the British Empire. We have got to recognise that three-fifths of the surface of the world is now under the political domination of two or three white Powers. It was very often said during the War that the cause of the War was Germany's desire to get a place in the sun. Germany is not the only great country which has no place in the sun. Take Japan—a country which is uncannily similar to our own, in its geographical configuration and its place in the northern latitudes, and a country which is rapidly developing as a great commercial nation. She has an increasing population, part of which is surplus, and she looks across the narrow straits which divide her from the American Continent and there she sees posted the words, "No yellow man may enter." It is the same with many of the islands in the Pacific—with Australia eyen. Australia is closed to the yellow race. [An HON. MEMBER: "By a Labour Government."] It does not matter who is responsible for it; that will not alter the consequences which inevitably follow from a policy like that. You cannot prevent a great and growing nation from seeking to provide opportunities and out lets for its people and development for its trade and commerce, and the only solution of the problem is to throw open the necessary natural resources of the world, raw material and the like, to all peoples who require them. You have in the present state of things one of the greatest provocations to war, and it is a state of things which, if maintained, is certain, in my opinion to lead eventually to a terrible outbreak. I now come to the third point which concerns the private interests involved. In one of the Articles of the
Covenant of the League of Nations, from which I have already quoted, reference is made to this matter:
The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being paid to the necessities of those members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety.
The Assembly of the League of Nations has had this matter under consideration and has made recommendations to the Council and the respective Governments upon the question. I once recollect making a speech of two and a quarter hours' duration in the House of Commons dealing exclusively with this question of private financial interests in the manufacture of war material. I am not going to repeat any of the facts or statements which I gave upon that occasion beyond saying that the armaments ring still exists. It still exercises its baneful influence upon Governments; it is still a great hindrance to peace; its emissaries were much in evidence at the Washington Conference, doing what they could to prevent an agreement which would take away their trade, their industry, and their profit. The armaments ring is all-powerful in the councils of the Admiralty, as well as in the War Office.
As I have said, I will not go into the matter of my former speech, but I will give to the House just one or two figures showing the power which these private financial interests exercise in securing contracts for themselves while Government dockyards and arsenals are idle. In the three years from 1900 to 1903 the work given to the Royal Dockyards amounted to £7,500,000. The amount a work given to private yards was £18,800,000. In those years it was well known the armament manufacturers had been particularly busy, with what result? With this result, that 10 years later, taking the three years from 1910 to 1913, the work done in the Royal Dockyards was less than £5,000.000, and the work in the private yards was nearly £38,000,000. Doubtless I shall get the answer that our yards cannot do the work. As a matter of fact, they can do it, and do it much better, and even if it costs more to do it ourselves, it should be done in that way, because then we should re-
move the incentive of private gain as a provocation of war, and an encouragement of additional expenditure upon naval and military work. Let me quote what the ex-Prime Minister said. Speaking in this House on 18th August, 1919, he said that when the Ministry of Munitions was started the 18-pounders cost 22s. 6d. a shell. They reduced that to I2s, and thereby saved, on that one item alone, £35,000,000. Then he referred to the Lewis gun. They reduced the cost from £165 in the private factories to £35 made by the State. Altogether, taking the work out of the hands of private contractors on those articles saved the State £440,000,000. Just one quotation more on this point. The Chairman of a Committee which was appointed in 1908 to inquire into the question of discharges from Woolwich said this:
I have before me figures showing the cost to the nation of a number of articles—

(a) Made in ordnance factories.
(b) Bought from contractors.
The first line shows that the cost of carriages for 18-pounder quick-firing guns made in the nation's factories is £343 14s,; supplied by contractors the price is £672 7s. The same story is told right through the table. The contractors' prices are from 50 to nearly 200 per cent. greater than the Arsenal cost. It is not economy that leads the War Office to buy from the contractors and discharge Arsenal men.
This is important from one point of view, but I do not urge it as the most important reason why the manufacture of armaments should be taken out of the hands of private individuals who are actuated by a desire to make a profit. I make no charge against these men. As individuals, they are neither better nor worse than all of us, but it is their business, and they can make their business pay only by getting work. The Government have recently given contracts for two battleships to private firms. It is common knowledge—every Member of Parliament knows—what lobbying of Ministers went on from representatives of constituencies where work might have been given.

Commander BELLAIRS: And from dockyards.

Mr. SNOWDEN: From dockyards, too, certainly, but that would not go on if you were to remove the incentive of private gain.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Does the hon. Member know that there is no
Government dockyard in which these ships can be built?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said at the beginning that I knew nothing at all about the technicalities of the question, but I do not see that that interruption interferes with, or nullifies, or even modifies my argument. If the Government are not at present in a position to do this. My point is that, if it be necessary to build these ships or similar ships, they ought to put themselves in a position to do it.

Mr. AMERY: I think I ought to reply at once to one statement the hon. Member made. He said it was common knowledge—the lobbying that went on with Ministers. No lobbying of any sort or kind went on. I was not approached on behalf of a single firm.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not mean that they were approached by these firms—by Members of Parliament, I said. I know, of my own knowledge, how interested many Members of Parliament were, and I know that, they do that when these contracts arc to be given, some of them very reluctantly, indeed.

Mr. AMERY: If any Members made such representations, they said they hoped the order might come to their constituents. No such recommendations had the slightest, influence in determining the contracts, which were given entirely to the lowest tenders, and the lowest tenders only.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That has no relevance to my point, that representations were made, and influence was exercised by Members of Parliament in order to get work for factories in the constituencies they represented, and that is inevitable under such a system. Those were my three points—fear and the desire for security, which cannot be secured by the policy we are pursuing now; a new Imperial policy removing the great danger of future international conflict because of certain countries being deprived of access to raw material and not having a proper market for the outlet of their goods; thirdly, this question of the private manufacture of armaments. The last part of my Amendment asks the Government
to use its influence to summon, as soon as possible, an international conference to
which all States, whether members of the League of Nations or not, should be invited, with a view to considering the extension of the principles of the Washington Treaty for the limitation of Naval armaments to all non-signatory States.
I do not suppose the Government can accept this Amendment, in view of the expression of regret which it contains in its earlier lines, but I do not see why they should not at least express their sympathy with the latter part of it. They were parties to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and this is simply proposing to carry out and to extend somewhat what is laid down in Article 8 of that Covenant. I hope that if such a Conference as this be -called, it will have wider powers and will discuss the question in a much wider and more general way than was done at the Washington Conference. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman states in his Memorandum, and that he stated in the earlier part of his speech this afternoon, that he has effected all the reductions which are possible by carrying out to the full the terms of the Washington Treaty shows that the substantial gain from the understanding made there has not been much, and he also stated in his speech that we must not expect in future any further reductions in expenditure as a result of the Washington Conference.
As a matter of fact, what the Washington Treaty did was to suspend for a few years competition in the building of those ships which are likely to be least necessary and least useful in future warfare, and it is a fact worthy of very serious consideration that the Washington Conference refused to set any limit upon what experts, I am told, regard as being the most destructive instruments in the next naval and aerial warfare, namely, submarines and aircraft. It is perfectly useless limiting the number of battleships unless you are also going to set a limit to the subsidiary and auxiliary instruments of warfare, and I hope, therefore, that if this Conference be called it will go into that question. It is the duty of our representatives on the Council of the League of Nations to see that such a Conference is called, as the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva last September passed a resolution calling on the Council of the League to do this, and the resolution was sent to each of the
Governments represented there. I would like to know if the British Government have taken any action upon that notification from the Assembly of the League of Nations.
I repeat that, if the Government cannot accept this Amendment, I hope they will give a sympathetic reply in regard to the last part of it, and that they will indicate that they are in sympathy with our desire —and I am quite sure they are—for such an international policy as will make it unnecessary for nations to spend enormous sums against the menace of a possible war. I hope they will do that, but, as I said earlier in the course of my observations, there are limits to what one Government can do. They can solve this problem only by international action, but I should be glad if I could have the assurance that my Government, the Government of my country, are going to take a prominent part. in trying to get the other nations of the world to co-operate together, to realise the great ideals of a world free from the menace of war which sustained the people of this country during the terrible years of the recent War.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to begin my remarks by referring to the speech that was made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and by explaining why I do not think it was any real reply to the criticisms against these Estimates which we have to make. The First Lord based the whole of his comparisons between the Estimates of this year and the Estimates of last year or the year before. In our view, the real comparison is one between the Estimates of this year and the Estimates just before the War, and that comparisons show these results, that in the year before the War the gross Naval Estimates were about £50,000,000, whereas this year they are £61,000,000, so that they are at this moment £11.000,000 higher than the highest level reached before the War. [Interruption.] If hon. Members will wait, I have not finished my speech yet. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty went on to defend the Estimates as they are, but that defence was based upon an improper foundation. The economies to which he referred were economies not due to internal and voluntary economies within the Admiralty, but were economies
due to the Washington Conference, the ratification of which led automatically to economies, quite apart from what the Admiralty did of its own volition.
Our point is this, that we have the right to ask the Admiralty what share it has taken, by its own internal acts, in that general scaling down of national expenditure which the Government has insisted is necessary for the economic recovery of the country, and I venture to say that, judged by that question, the Admiralty has a weaker and more unsatisfactory reply than the War Office or than any of the civil Departments. Take the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, which was under the chairmanship of Sir E. Geddes. That Committee recommended reductions amounting, taking all the Departments together, to about £100,000,000. In response to that we secured reductions of about £50,000,000. The War Office was asked for a reduction of £20,000,000 and achieved a reduction of£10,000,000. Take the social Services. The Board of Education was asked for a reduction of £80,000,000, and achieved a reduction of £7,500,000. What has the Admiralty done? That is a legitimate question to ask. What have they done in response to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee?
It was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman that the reductions which the Admiralty had made were clue to the Washington Conference. Last year I read a speech—I was not in the House at the time—but I recollect that he pointed out that no less than £15.000,000 of the reduction in the Estimates were due to the Washington Conference, and he has told us in this Memorandum of his and his speech to-day that the bulk of the reduction in these Estimates are due to the Washington Conference. But the Geddes Committee recommendation was that, quite apart from the Washington Conference, over and above that Conference, the Admiralty should he required to make a reduction of £21,000,000. Of that sum they have actually made a reduction of only £4,000,000. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is not an answer to the real criticism which we have directed against these Estimates.
The position is this: The War Office— which is not usually held up as a model —have made a reduction of £10,000,000. Put the Admiralty on one side and the
other Departments of State on the other. The Geddes Committee asked all the other Departments for a reduction of £80,000,000 and secured a reduction of£48,000,000, or nearly 60 per cent. In the case of the Admiralty, out of a reduction of £21,000,000 asked for, only £4,000,000 reduction was secured, or less than 25 per cent. I am sorry that the First Lord is not for the moment in his place, because I should like to refer to the reasons he gave for, in this way, the direct passing by of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Admiralty issued a Memorandum on the subject. In that Memorandum they not only answered the Geddes Committee, but they practically treated it with contempt. In his speech on the subject in this House the First Lord practically said that the recommendations of the Geddes Committee were based upon ignorance of the most elementary facts of naval administration. That was the argument. When I read those remarks, it appeared to me that they proved a great deal too much. After all, Sir Eric Geddes was himself a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of the Committee happened to have been Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and in every other Department of State the report of that Committee was recognised to be a supremely able document.
It has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman himself that in regard to the coastguard he had accepted the recommendations of the Committee. Under these circumstances, to argue that when it comes to the bulk of the Admiralty work the report of the Committee was based upon a careless ignorance of elementary facts is an argument which no other Department has used, and which I say no other Department would have been permitted to use. The fact is that, I suppose, the Admiralty is the least criticised of all the Departments of State. Speaking roughly about the Admiralty is a kind of lèse-majesté As the right hon. Gentleman has said, one of the consequences was that when the War broke out it was found that the staff of the Admiralty was grossly deficient. May I refer to one question which has been discussed this evening, and on which neither I nor many Members of the House can speak with naval or military
authority, but upon which we- are justified in speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We have got the technical knowledge on this side if we want to use it.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think it would be a misfortune for Debates in this House if the only Members who spoke on the Services were those who happened to have professional knowledge. I do not think it is really a fair jeer from the other side because a number of speakers who understand the subject—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is not the point; the hon. Member misses it!

Mr. LEES-SMITH: But we are justified in speaking on these matters from the point of view of economy, and I shall, therefore, say something about this question, and the relationship between the different Services and the Ministry of Defence which has been discussed. When I was in the House some years ago I used, for the sake of information, to listen to the technical discussions on the Army and the Navy. In those days the technical discussions, and the arguments, used to be, as a rule, as to the different arms within one Service, cavalry, mounted infantry, and so on, but within the last few years, as I have read the Debates, I have noticed the discussions have changed in their character. They have been discussions as to the possibility of substituting, not different arms within the Service, but of substituting the arm of one Service for the arm of another Service. I have heard discussions about substituting aeroplanes for cavalry and infantry. The right hon. Gentleman himself to-day entered to some extent into a discussion of how far the Air Force have rendered capital ships obsolete and meaningless. On this point I shall show how difficult it is for us to make up our minds when we see great exponents of warfare on that very Front Bench opposite contradicting each other about the simplest point. The First Lord told us to-day that capital ships, in the opinion of the Naval Staff, still constitute the unchallenged mainstay and pivot of the naval battle. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] Well, I am glad to hear those approving manifestations, because I find that another great exponent of warfare, who is on that Front Bench, the new
Postmaster-General, has practically told us that he and about half a dozen like him could wipe out a capital ship practically single-handed. [An HON. MEMBER: "He knows nothing about it"] Does he not? Then does the First Lord of the Admiralty know anything about it? I do not know how many years of naval service he put in to qualify for the position he now holds. While just on that point, may I read to the House the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague who wrote a letter to the "Times"? [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose is the letter?"] That of the new Postmaster-General.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Hon. Members do not know who he is, Tell them!

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham said:
Let the Air Service take a battleship worth £8,000,000, and let me attack it at a distance of 2,000 yards with torpedo-carrying aeroplanes, and I will guarantee that the ship shall be hit four times out of five.
I am bound to say that it seems to me a pity that such a right hon. Gentleman should be buried in St. Martins-le-Grand, and he should be occupied there at this time of unemployed Cæsars giving his time to sending away parcels and licking stamps. The point I wish to make out of this disagreement of opinion is this; that if we now have reached a time when the discussion is as to how far an arm of one Service can be substituted for an arm of another Service, then it seems to me clear that the point cannot be settled by each Service separately fighting for its own professional view; it can only be settled by some kind of Ministry of Defence which includes all the Services and is the subject of none. From the point of view of economy, it is evident to me that, unless that is done, we are bound to have duplication and overlapping, and there will be no security, that when we agree, as we shall here, to increase the expenditure on one Service, that it will lead to any corresponding reduction of any other Service.
There is one other point, with regard to the actual question of the finance of these Estimates on which I should like to have some observations from
the right hon. Gentleman. I am very sorry to learn from the answer given to me the other day by the right hon. Gentleman that he, in his Department, has apparently postponed to an indefinite future the proposal for new forms of accounts which was made five years ago by the Committee on National Expenditure, and which the War Office has adopted, which the Admiralty promised to adopt a year after, but of which there is no trace to be found in the Estimates presented to-day. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the history of the subject. The Committee on National Expenditure, of 30 members, unanimously proposed that the accounts, the Estimates, should be presented in the form of commercial firms, that they should be presented so as to show the exact expenditure for each branch of the Service, so that one could know the actual cost of a unit of cavalry, infantry, and so on, and the cost of a student in the Naval or Military school. They pointed out that if that were done one would know what each branch cost, and he would be able to compare the cost of one year with the cost of another year. If the Admiralty adopts the same Estimate you can compare the cost of one Service with a similar operation in another Service. Sir Charles Harris, the Chief Financial Adviser to the, War Office, in giving evidence a short time ago before the Public Accounts Committee, stated that by adopting this form of Estimates for the Army they had saved vast sums of money. This is the sort of thing which makes me wonder whether it is good for the Admiralty to be immune from criticism. Why should they be five years behind the Army in this matter?
The Army Estimates are intelligible to the ordinary mind, and they do give us now one of the most instructive and interesting documents sent to us free of charge every morning. Sir Charles Harris pointed out that now for the first time in its history the War Office knew the real cost of the Services, they knew even what a battalion in Iraq was costing, and by knowing these things the War Office was able to detect when the expenditure was excessive, and they could take steps to reduce it. He also pointed out that this system enabled the War Office to give the military officers a freer hand, and they had been able to dispense with that multiplicity of minute regulations which we had to submit to during
the War. Now the military officers have a much freer hand, because they can actually judge the economy and expenditure by the results year by year. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question which I put to him on this subject the other day, said that the Public Accounts Committee, reporting in 1921, had stated that they might await further experience in case of the War Office before applying this system to other Departments. I read that Report, and if hon. Members will read it they will find that the Public Accounts Committee were referring in particular to the application of this system to the Civil Department where, as everybody admits, there are many differences, but they deliberately intimated that its application to the Admiralty would be simple, advantageoes, and would involve no great expense. Under these circumstances and since those observations were made two years ago, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now take this subject into his consideration.
I wish to look at the very much broader issues which this Amendment contains. The remarks I have been making have been directed simply to economies in administration which accept the general structure of the Estimates. This Amendment points out another fact. All these Estimates arc dependent upon policy, and when I read the Estimates amounted to over £60,000,000 for the Admiralty, my mind went back to certain things I witnessed in this House during the War Parliament, At that time, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) used to sit on the second seat below the Gangway accompanied by two or three other of my hon. Friends on what used to be referred to as the "pacifist bench."
I remember some of the Debates which took place then and some of the promises which were made as to the reduction of expenditure after the War. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition getting up at regular intervals and saying to the Government, "Is it not possible now for all sides in this War to come together and try and settle it on terms honourable to all by means of negotiations." I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman is ashamed of having said that now. I remember the replies that used
to be given. Very frequently the reply came from the Prime Minister in this sense. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will remember the replies he used to make on this point He used to say in effect, "No, there shall be no settlement and no negotiations until there has been a military victory." The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) would rise and say, "Do you understand what that reply means? Do you understand that it will mean hundreds of thousands of men will be slain, thousands of homes will be ruined and thousands of women's hearts will be broken?" An hon. Member opposite would then rise and say, "That is so; that is war." They would then tell us, "When the War is over you will find that you were wrong and we were right, because then we shall be able to make a peace which will remove war and the burden of armaments from the minds of men for generations to come.", You slaughtered the men, ruined the homes, and broke the women's hearts—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What did you do?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I tried to prevent it, and, in so doing, I was vindicated by my constituents. So far as I am personally concerned, I underwent infinitely greater danger than the hon. and gallant Member who has interrupted me.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better address his remarks to the Chair.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The hon. Member should not make offensive remarks.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Our Government sent representatives to Paris able to make what peace they liked. They made peace, and in spite of what they promised, we find now that there are more armed men in Europe and a much larger military expenditure than before the War. In this country the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates amount to £125,000,000, and there can be no substantial reduction in those Estimates until there is a Government in this country which will retrace the steps then taken, and make some effort to undo some of the blindness and folly of 1918.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but after some of the statements
which have been made I feel that I must say a, few words. The, hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) made a similar speech to-night to the one he made on 18th March, 1914, and I venture to say that had we then adopted what the hon. Member then so strongly recommended, when war broke out we should not have been in so favourable a position as we were. He complains that in the days previous to the War the First Lord of the Admiralty had consultations with Lord Beatty regarding the plans for a war with Germany. Does the hon. Member for Colne Valley object to the taking of necessary precautions in order to secure the safety of the State? Are the Admiralty to make no plans in case there is an outbreak of war in order to protect the people of this country?
The hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment stated that until we have Free Trade and have re-written the Treaty of Versailles no reduction in our Estimates is possible. That is just the reason why these Estimates ought to be passed. There is no hon. Member of this House who does not wish to see our national expenditure reduced to the very lowest minimum, but those responsible for our safety have one duty to perform to the people of this country, and that is the feeding of the people. Hon. Members seem to forget that this island is not self-contained; in fact, at one time during the War we had only three weeks' supply of food, and it was solely due to the Navy that we were able to increase that supply. Are we to understand from this Amendment that the necessary protection for securing the safety of our food supply is to be sacrificed in the interests of economy? I would like to hear from some hon. Member opposite what he thinks our naval force should be, and what should be its duty. Are we to rely for our safety upon the goodwill of the non-signatories to the Treaty? Are we to ask them to come and discuss with us further naval reductions? I would like to ask the proposer of this Amendment, does he include Germany?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Amendment means exactly what it says, "non-signatory States."

Sir R. HALL: That, of course, includes Germany. We have yet to see Germany fulfil any engagement she has entered
into. Are we to ask these people to sit round the table and discuss with us our future, when they have never given any evidence whatever of their willingness to carry out anything they have ever signed? I do not wish to criticise the naval knowledge of the hon. Member for Colne Valley when he says battleships are useless, but if they are useless, then a number of nations disagree with him. So long as you have a naval staff who are held responsible under the Government to secure the safety of the seas, you have either to act upon what they recommend or else have a change

7.0 P.M.

Commander BELLAIRS: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) made a speech with his accustomed skill, but I think he was a little ungracious in not recognising what the Admiralty has already done. We know, as the gallant Admiral the Member for West Derby (Sir R. Hall) has pointed out, that the hon. Member for Colne Valley has consistently made that same speech. Indeed, if he were the Judge, and Cromwell came up for judgment because he spent half the revenue of the country on the Navy, Cromwell would probably incur the same fate as did Charles I. Although the hon. Member for Colne Valley has spoken with great skill. I am not prepared to say that his Amendment is drawn up with great skill. I would ask him this question. He drafted this Amendment, and put it on the Order Paper. It was on the Order Paper on 6th March. Had he a copy of the Navy Estimates in his hand when he did that? The Navy Estimates had not then been laid, and I can hardly think the Admiralty gave him the Navy Estimates in advance of us. Therefore, it was intelligent prevision on his part, or perhaps he had consulted a spiritualist meeting. It is notorious from those who go to spiritualist meetings, that the people in the other world have less intelligence than our own. I should say, therefore, that the Amendment was drafted by a medium, and it accounts for the fact that it is so unintelligible.
If you take the latter part of the Amendment, it calls in the non-signatory Powers. That, however, is not the difficulty. The difficulty is that the limitation of armaments has itself been limited to battleships and aircraft carriers, and there are limitations on the tonnage and guns of cruisers. What we want,
and what the Admiralty pressed for at the Conference, was to extend the limitation of armaments in other directions and to the aircraft. The Admiralty proposed that the submarine should be abolished altogether. What blocked the extension of the limitation of armaments in other directions? It was the action of France; it was not our action. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley wants the Amendment to read aright, so that others can support that part of it, he would have to strike out the totally unnecessary words—which he was careful not to read, or which by accident he did not read—" to all non-signatory States." If he does that, then we can bring up by this Amendment a reduction of armaments.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The words of the last three lines of my Amendment are not my own at all. They are taken word for word from the resolution passed at the last assembly meeting of the League of Nations.

Commander BELLAIRS: Then the League of Nations made a mistake, because we all want a limitation of armaments by all Powers, and not merely an extension of the agreement to non-signatories. I am sure the hon. Member sees how much his Amendment will he strengthened if he struck out those words. He tried to put the Admiralty in the wrong by going from one nation to another and saying, "How can you arm against that nation?" This mode of argument is like that in previous speeches the hon. Member has delivered, as I will attempt to show. Flow can the Admiralty know what will be the position years hence? They have to prepare for years hence. You have to build ships and train men for years hence. Could Germany have anticipated that Italy would be fighting against her in the late War?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

Commander BELLAIRS: Italy was her ally. Could Japan have anticipated that France and Germany would combine to coerce her? It was impossible to anticipate such a thing. It was impossible to anticipate that there would be nearly a combination of France, Germany and Russia against us in the South African War. It is impossible, with any foresight, to see what will be the combinations in the future.
There is another possibility in regard to the hon. Member's Amendment. He might say he knows the Tory party of old, their inextinguishable impenetrability to his ideas. He might say:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
I will not finish the quotation. Thereafter he would feel justified in drafting his Amendment without ever having seen the Navy Estimates. I looked it up to see how that quotation applied to the hon. Member. I remember his speeches while I have been in the House, and I looked up his speech on 14th March, 1910, on the Navy Estimates. There was the same kind of argument then. He referred to the 40,000,000 of expenditure then as a
cruel and wasteful expenditure.
He quoted the German Imperial Chancellor of the day he quoted his predecessor, the ex-Imperial Chancellor; he quoted Prince Henry. Then he quoted the German Ambassador, and he turned to the Government and said:
If you believe those sentiments, how can you possibly arm against Germany?
I remember on one occasion, about 1909, I said the German staff doctrine which permeated Germany taught them to adhere to a treaty as long as it suited them and, when it did not suit them, to throw it aside. I added:
You cannot believe the word of a German Imperial Chancellor.
The result was I was not able to go on with my speech for a minute or two, owing to interruptions. The next argument the hon. Member used was to refer to the growth of Socialism and Internationalism. He said:
That growth is such that no great Power would dare go to war, because they could not trust their armies and navies.
That was falsified. We, who were true prophets, and who said war was coming, might surely demand, in accordance with precedent, that the false prophet should be handed over to us that we might offer him as a burnt sacrifice on the altar of truth. After 13 years, the offending Adam is still there. Milton said:
Consideration, like an angel, came and whipped the offending Adam out of him.
My hon. Friend has still the old offending Adam, as the gallant Admiral showed, by comparison with his 1914 speech. He ought to have shown, if he wanted to be
fair to the Admiralty, in the first part of his Amendment, that there had been no reductions of personnel, of shipbuilding, no scrapping of old battleships, and no reductions in the commissioned Fleet. I will lead him gently by stepping-stones, if he will allow me to be his instructor on these points, to show what the reductions actually achieved have been. The personnel has been reduced to so low a figure that you have to go back a whole generation, to 1896, to find such a reduced personnel in the Navy. As regards the shipbuilding and the two battleships to which he referred, it was 61 years since we laid down a battleship. That battleship was the "Hood," which was really a pre-Jutland ship in which they were only able to embody some of the experience of the Battle of Jutland. We were losing all the skill and resource accustomed to designing and building those ships, and, after all, those private establishments, which the hon. Member condemned, do stand as a great asset. I could join issue with him on the question of private yards versus Royal dockyards, but that is far better relegated to the Shipbuilding Vote, Vote 8. There was the danger that we were losing those resources and that skill. The United States had conserved those resources and that skill, by building and laying down battleships, and so had Japan.
With regard to personnel, surely it is some reduction, since 1914, to reduce the personnel by 51,000 men—one-third of what it was in 1914? There have also been some reductions in the dockyards, as the dockyard Members could tell us. In regard to scrapping, the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that 17 battleships, which we should certainly have kept but for the Washington Conference, have been scrapped. We have been practically the only Power that has implemented the Washington Conference at this moment. Our motto was the monosyllabic one, "Trust and Scrap." The other Powers nailed to the mast the well-known motto, "Wait and See." We all waited for France to pass the Washington Treaty, and we are still waiting, though I believe she has stated she is going to pass it. There were certain risks, hut. I will not deal with them, because the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out what risks we had run. Even in the Washing-
ton Conference, we have shown that we do not regard the United States as a possible Power with which we could go to war. What have we done? We have agreed to have only three post-Jutland battleships, and the "Hood" is included, though she is not really a post-Jutland battleship. She is a hybrid. Any naval officers would say so. The United States has not three but really five post-Jutland battleships under the Washington agreement. The only reason for excluding two of them they gave is, that they have twelve 14-inch guns instead of eight 16-inch guns—there are many naval officers who contend that the twelve 14-inch guns arc superior armaments to the eight 16-inch guns—while Japan will have two, that is no great margin.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who followed the First Lord of the Admiralty, found fault with us for comparing with the United States. Surely we are entitled to compare with the United States in order to show our moderation. We do not say we are going to war with the United States. Nobody thinks so, for a moment. The people of the United States would never permit their Government to go to war with this country, nor do I think the people of this country would ever permit our Government to go to war with the United States. It would be sheer madness on the part of any Government to think of such a proposition. We are, however, entitled to show that when we have reduced much more than America it is evidence of moderation on the part of the British Admiralty, especially when you think that the United States is self-contained and that our Empire is united entirely by sea routes and that we depend, probably, for four-fifths of our supplies of food and raw material on overseas transport, and in addition we have the greatest shipping trade in the world. The First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out that the personnel we are providing is 99,500, as compared with 115,400 for the 'United States, which shows a considerably smaller personnel. Of all kinds of ships—submarines to battleships—in full commission we have 156; in full commission the United States has 210. Comparing with 1914—the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said we ought to compare with 1914—we have only 15 battleships in full commis-
sion to-day, as compared with 38 in 1914. That is a. large reduction. On all big ships—from light cruisers to battleships—in full or partial commission, we have 64 now as compared with 168, in 1914. That is a large reduction.
When we get to expenditure we find that it is one-third down in two years. There has been a reduction of £8,000,000 in the gross Estimates this year, and the reduction on the material Votes, compared with 1914, as the Seconder of the Amendment desired, has been no less than £7,600,000, in spite of greatly increased cost. If we were to reckon that the price of material costs of the Navy in 1014 at the price of to-day we should find the reduction to be very much greater. When the hon. Member attacked the 1910 Estimates, our expenditure on new construction was £13,064,000. To-day it is only £5,274,000. Surely that is a great reduction. As a matter of fact, we are not going to lay down a single ship of any kind, not even a submarine during this financial year, and I do not believe that in the records of our steam Navy will you ever find a similar state of circumstances, neither will you find it in the records of any other nation at the present moment. I would like to refer to 1896 again. Personnel is about the same; the new construction Vote is £2,000,000 less than in 1896 in spite of the immensely increased cost of material. What is the reason for this great change? The reason is the improved outlook in the Far East. When I spike on the 1919 Estimates I drew attention to the outlook in the Pacific and expressed a wish that the country would get away from the European outlook and take the Pacific outlook. I said that I believed the Anglo-Japanese alliance strengthened the Military party in Japan and that if we were to get rid of it we would strengthen the Liberal element in Japan, using the term Liberal in the best sense of the word, and there would be a Government in power with liberal tendencies. After the Washington Conferences the alliance ended and that fact dethroned the Military party in Japan and led Japan to abandon the race for armaments. The Japanese ships in commission were very much reduced in number. They are cutting down their Naval armament, and there is one thing they are doing which should snake the mouths of Sheffield Members water. They
have announced that the -Japanese Government will protect the iron industry and that the money saved by Naval reductions will be granted to machine and engine works as subsidies. There is one thing they have not reduced and to that I will not the First Lord's attention; they have not reduced their War staff. We have reduced our War staff at the Admiralty to only 60 members. The more you reduce the Navy the more clangorous is it to reduce the War staff, for you must compensate for a reduced Navy by superior brains so that we shall not be taken into all sorts of wild cat schemes as in 1914. This is revealed by Mr. Churchill although he does not know it in his Reminiscences. He unconsciously proves that the absence of a proper War staff was the source of all our mistakes. M. Clemenceau, speaking in New York on the 21st November, 1922, said: "America's guarantee was obtained by the suppression of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance." No, it was our guarantee; it suppressed the military party; it led to it being dethroned. Before that Japan had the greatest naval review she had ever had before the Emperor, and it was followed by great naval manoeuvres. She came, out with a bigger programme than we had dreamt of, to be completed at a very rapid rate, quite in the old German style. With the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance that programme has been largely abandoned the number of ships has been considerably reduced. From 20 capital ships in full commission she has come down to seven. Just think what these circumstances were three years ago. We had sent Lord Jellicoe round the world in the battleship "New Zealand" to report upon the necessary Fleet for the future. He had reported that by 1924 we would require in the Far East a Fleet of 16 capital ships, 10 light cruisers, and 76 torpedo craft. Thus, in the Far East where we have no docks and no oil resources, that huge armada was to be there by 1924. We have saved all that; we have only 8 light cruisers and 12 submarines in the whole Pacific. Because of the improved outlook as regards Japan we have been able to effect this great naval economy.
We should apply that lesson to France. It is France that is holding us back. France spoilt the Washington Conference. I believe that if we were quite plainly to state our opinions and to ask for a fresh
Conference on any question on which we have friction, and if we were to say that if France does not go along with us then the Entente so far as we are concerned is at an end it might lead to another Government being elected in France just as it led to another one in Japan with much more liberal tendencies. That is my view and it is well such a view should be given utterance to from the Conservative benches. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley will omit all the first part of his Resolution and the words at the end: "To all non-signatory States" it would be impossible to resist supporting him, and the only reason which would determine me not to support him would be on grounds of compassion for the Chair, because you, Sir, would be unable to get out of the Chair. We have of course to support the Government in this. As hon. Members know the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States has passed a Resolution asking for a fresh Conference on the limitation of Armaments with the object of applying it to all naval craft and to all air craft. I wish this House would also pass such a Resolution. These things must be met with courage, and not by the use of that pentasyllabic word "opportunism." The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day stated his objections to prolatariate as a pentasyllabic word. I think opportunism is a much more hateful word than prolatariate. I should like to see prominence given to a word which is among
the jewels five words long
That on the stretched forefinger of all time
Sparkle for ever.
I refer to the word "stabilisation." Not merely stabilisation of finance; not merely stabilisation of frontiers; but also stabilisation of armaments, bringing them as near zero as possible, but it must be mutual and relative. When you had the stabilisation of frontier between Canada and the United States, where for over 100 years the gun has never boomed nor has the trumpet blown, you had a stabilisation in which both agreed to have no armaments.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I feel in some difficulty in criticising the last speaker, because I do not think I ever heard a speech in this House which I liked better. We have been told that armaments express policy. I can only think of that
expressed policy in two ways. They express a policy of wobbling and indecision. They also express a policy of expenditure. Even taking into account the very much greater cost of everything subsequent to the War, it seems to me there is very much to be said. When we come to the actual relative figures of battleships, light cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, one cannot but feel, when we place these figures against a background of history of the British Navy, against a background of the British Empire, and against a background of British history, one is forced to the conclusion that they are in some way, from the standpoint of certain people, pathetically and practically inadequate. It seems that in order to defend those interests which hon. Members opposite have so near at heart, and in order to defend that Empire which they believe in so fervently, that they arc not providing anything like enough for their needs. The Navy seems to me to-day to be in a position depicted in Turner's famous picture, "The Fighting Temeraire," being towed to its last berth. The British Navy certainly has the appearance of being towed to the breaker-up as rapidly as possible. I believe the day has gone by when the British Navy will be the most formidable Navy in the world … at least, under the present system.
It seems as if hon. Members on the Benches opposite have agreed with the Government that they must capitulate. Our Navy is no longer comparable in material with the Navy of the United States. It is certainly more comparable with the Navy of France, and personally I do not think there is much danger to fear from the French Navy. The Navy of France never has been within modern times a particularly formidable force. On the other hand, I do not think that .the Americans, although they can spend very much more money on naval armaments than this country can at the present time, can thereby necessarily get a Navy anything like the Equivalent of yours. It has yet to be proved that the American Navy, in respect of material or in respect of personnel, would be in any sense an equivalent of the British Navy, even although an equal amount of money were to be spent on the two. Therefore, from that standpoint I think we need not be so much afraid. The difficulty is
you are not going forward, neither will you go backwards. There is no will to power Oil those benches, nor will to anything. It is a very hopeful sign from the standpoint of those of us who are through with the British Empire and the whole policy of Imperialism as a reflection of the capitalist system. For my own part, I do not share the sentiments expressed on these Benches with regard to disarmament at the present time. I cannot conceive that there could be disarmament with any Government that would be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). I cannot see how, within the capitalist system or within the kind of Labour Government of which he would approve, disarmament is possible, and, therefore, I cannot quite see how he and his supporters are going whole-heartedly into the Lobby behind an Amendment of this kind, although I will say quite frankly that I myself am going to vote with them to-night. I am going to vote against the Navy Estimates, every one; I am going to vote against the Air Estimates, every one; and I am going to vote against the Army Estimates, every one—that being the policy of the party whom I represent in the House of Commons. It was the policy of one of our founders, Karl Liebknecht. I was associated with Liebknecht before the War, during the War and subsequent to the War. We take the position of those who voted against the Estimates before the War, and voted against the Estimates during the War.
I noticed that one bon. Member opposite alluded to the fact that the Socialists in Germany were missing when the War came. Yes, they were loyal to the principles of the Second International. Those who were against the Estimates, who voted against the Estimates, who fought ruthlessly against the War within their own country, were the founders of the Communist International. We mean from this time forward in this country to set the standard that those who stand for the working-class position out-and-out must be rigidly against the voting of war Estimates and preparations for war before a war and during the war. I do not, however, want anyone to think that I oppose these Estimates having the view that if this country were under a bonâ fide working-class Government we should take the position of disarmament.
I quite echo, from the standpoint of one who hopes to see the working classes rule in this country, the kind of sentiments to which the hon. and gallant Member for the West Derby Division (Sir R. Hall) gave expression, in regard to the necessity for defending the sea routes by which food comes to this country, and in the event of this country going revolutionary, we should not hesitate for a single minute to defend the country with a Red Army and a Red Navy to the uttermost of our power. I want it to be clearly understood that we do not take the view of yielding, once the country becomes our own; but we do object to defending somebody else's country in which we have not got a stake. I vote to-day against the Estimates because I vote against the policy of blockade. In so far as the Navy exists for the defence of the interests of the working class within the country, the Navy is assured of my support; in so far as it is an instrument of British Imperialism, the Navy, in this House and outside the House, is assured of the opposition of the Communist party. That is the position which we take, and to which we shall in course of time hope to rally the people of this country.
There was a certain remark in the very serious and eloquent speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty which I think must be taken very gravely, having in mind the European situation at the present time. He alluded to the incident of Fashoda, and to the way in which the Navy maintained the peace at that time. That is curiously significant. When the relations of this country and France are such as they arc to-day, when the orthodox parties walk round the subject, and the unorthodox, heterodox parties come to the point of the danger of a misunderstanding between the two countries—which, stripped of all the verbiage of diplomacy, means that the countries are drifting to war—the First Lord of the Admiralty goes out of his way to allude to the Fashoda incident, which was the last occasion on which this country was almost at war with. France; and he goes on from that to allude to another incident at the time of the South African War, when practically a continental bloc was being formed against this country by France, Germany and Russia. We know that There is being discussed on the Continent at the present time—not, perhaps, by
responsible statesmen yet, but by irresponsible editors who largely control responsible statesmen—a movement for a continental bloc against. Britain, and when we hear the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the House of Commons, alluding to that, we cannot get away from the fact that the situation is grave and is one that we must face at the earliest possible moment. In every debate deal-Stag directly or indirectly with foreign affairs we are coming nearer and nearer to an admission of the fact that the relations between this country and France are becoming as the relations between this country and Germany.[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is inherent in every debate, and it has got to be realised. It does not matter whether it is realised within the walls of this House or not; it must be realised by the working classes of Britain and France outside the wails of this House, so that we may be able to counter that attempt of British Imperialism to forward its interests, and of French Imperialism to forward its interests. The danger of war is too great at the present time, and everything we can do within the Chamber or without the Chamber must be done to prevent war between the workers of the two countries.
Captain Viscount CURZON: After the very remarkable speech to which we have just listened, I feel in some doubt as to whether we are discussing Navy Estimates or foreign affairs. But, as the question of the Navy is largely wrapped up with foreign affairs, I suppose there is some connection. With regard to the Amendment now before the House, I could not help wondering, like the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) whether the Mover of the Amendment had studied the Estimates or not. The Estimates before the House show a-reduction of no less than £7,000,000, and 20,000 officers and men have been condemned to a' life of hardship as the result of what, has been done. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Estimates, said that the careers of officers and men had been sacrificed to the public interest. That puts is just about rightly, and the spirit in which this sacrifice has been made by the Navy is simply beyond all praise. There is no market for the naval officer when he leaves the Navy. There is practically nothing he can go in for. The labour market is already so
congested that it cannot absorb any more, and I know of cases of naval officers who, in spite of the compensation, which is as generous as could really be expected in the circumstances, arc nearly on their beam ends and do not know how they are going to carry on. I should like, if I may, in passing, to give a word of praise to the Admiralty for the fairness with which they have carried out the reductions, for, whatever else the naval officer may feel, though he. may feel sore at having to leave his life's career behind him, I think that at any rate they one and all recognise that the Admiralty's best endeavour has been to be strictly and scrupulously fair in the way in which the reduction has been carried out.
In spite of the reductions, we still have to face a, large expenditure. We have heard a good deal this afternoon from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen as to the cost of the Navy before the War and the cost of the Navy to-day, but really the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) was almost the first who seemed to recognise the fact that money to-day does not buy what it did before the War. I venture to say that the Admiralty's record is not too bad, for they had to face this year an expenditure in respect of the "Rodney" and the "Nelson," as shown in the explanatory statement, of over 4,000,000. A lot of people are inclined to ask, nowadays, "What is the Navy for?" Hon. Members sometimes forget that in times of peace the Navy is called upon to meet emergencies arising out of storm, fire—as, for instance, the fire at Smyrna—flood, civil disturbance, insurrection, and slave-dealing, and, finally, to defend the Empire against aggression. The Navy, in short, is always ready and is always on war service. Therefore, we must ensure that, whatever we do, we do not impair the war efficiency of the Navy. There is one point to which I should like particularly to allude. The question of reducing naval expenditure is an Imperial question, and nothing else. It is not a question for this country alone what the size of our Navy should be. We have our Empire all round the world, and it is the duty of this country to hold an imperial Conference at the very earliest possible moment, to decide exactly what sort of Navy we shall have, and to what extent its cost shall be borne by each individual member of the British Empire. Only the
other day the new Premier of Australia, Mr. Bruce, said:
Notwithstanding the Washington Conference and the growing influence of the League of Nations, of which Australia is a. loyal member, we think an Empire Naval Defence Scheme to be imperative, and a common understanding on foreign policy and Naval defence cannot be reached until the representatives of Great Britain and of the Dominions meet.
I put a question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether a Conference was going to be held, and I quoted these words, but the right hon. Gentleman was not able, I am afraid, to speak with any great certainty on the matter. Mean-while, the reduction of the Navy is going on, not only at home, but also abroad. I should like to ask the: First Lord whether the Committee of Imperial Defence are really satisfied with the position? In 1919 the Australian Navy had 33 units, and those have now been reduced to 20. That is a very serious reduction, and I should like to know whether it has received the consideration of the Imperial General Staff in conjunction with the reductions which are now being made in our Navy. All these questions seem to me to point to the fact that we absolutely must have a united front to deal with the question of Imperial Defence all together. Another point to which I should like to allude is the reduction in the amount of fuel for the Fleet. I believe this reduction has reached a point—the figures have never been disclosed, and I am afraid they cannot be disclosed—which is very serious. I have reason to believe, on good authority, that the reduction of the feel supply of the Navy has already passed the danger point. I will even go so far as to assert that the British Navy has not at the present time more than four days supply of oil and fuel on active service. I may be wrong, but that is my impression, and if it is so it is a most serious risk, a risk of which the country knows nothing, and a risk which we should not be allowed to run for a single day. I do not ask the Admiralty to confirm or deny my statement, but I do ask the First Lord to give same very specific assurance as to whether the Navy's fuel supplies are sufficient or not.
The hon. and gallant Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir R. Hall) alluded to the question of food. It seems to have been forgotten that the present Prime Minister has already stated
that we can have agriculture in this country if we pay for it. We could pay for it in one of two ways, either by Protection or subsidies. Neither course commends itself to the country or is ever likely to do so. If we do not have Protection, if we do not make ourselves entirely self-supporting in the matter of food, the food must come from overseas, and I should like to ask hen. Members who have spoken whether they would really be serving the interests of their constituents, and whether they think their constituents would really wish them to run the appalling risk that we should have to run, if the Navy were not able to ensure that the trade routes are kept open. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to look at this question, not from the party point of view, but from the national point of view. I am certain they are just as much concerned in this matter as we are, and I do ask that when they come to the question of considering the reduction of naval expenditure they will sec that the reductions are practicable. I am perfectly certain that the Fleet has been cut down, in the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, absolutely to the bone. It may be possible to reduce slightly the expenditure on the dockyards and other establishments, but I do not, think that the Navy can be further reduced with safety to the country arid the Empire. Finally, I urge the First Lord of the Admiralty, for all I am worth, to impress upon the Prime Minister that we must have in the interests of the Government an Imperial Conference at the earliest moment, this year without fail.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Noble Lord in the closing portion of his speech referred to the amount of oil fuel in the ships of His Majesty's Fleet. May I direct his attention to page 254 of the present Estimates, in which it is clearly stated that the stock of steam coal and oil fuel on the 31st March this year amounted to nearly £9,000,000. A little further on the same page is the statement that the total issue of steam coat and oil fuel to His Majesty's ships amounts to about half of that figure. There is a very ample supply.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: What proportion of that is for oil fuel?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Estimates do not reveal that.

Sir N. MOORE: It may be only 10 per cent.

Sir G. COLLINS: It is mainly for oil fuel and not for coal. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty will enlighten the Noble Lord. Several hon. Members have compared the Estimates of to-day with the Estimates of pre-War days. Any such comparison is unfair to the thousands of men who fought in the War. The thousands of men throughout the War gave of their best to bring about a better state of society and to meet the German menace. To compare the Estimates today with the Estimates pre-War is antagonistic to the dominating spirit and desire which permeates all classes of the community to-day. The only fair comparison of the present Estimates is to judge them by the needs of the moment and the position of the future, while having regard to the financial state of the nation to-day.
The Estimates consist of two main items, the Effective Vote and the Non-Effective Vote. The First Lord made .great play with the large reductions in the Effective Vote. The figure contained in the Navy Estimates of £50,102,000 for the Effective Vote is very misleading. The Admiralty in the coming year are drawing on reserves of stores to the extent of £1,874,000. In addition, the Admiralty are taking credit for over £1,000,000 for the sale of ships. That sum of £1,000,000 should he placed to the credit of the Disposal Board, and the Admiralty should not take credit for that figure in the Estimates. Adding these two figures, therefore, to the £50,102,000 for the Effective Vote in the present Naval Estimates, the total real figure, is £53,000,000. If I am mistaken in that view, perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty will correct me. That very small reduction has taken place at a time of falling prices. The total reduction in the Effective Vote is only 9 per cent. That is the record of the Admiralty during the present year, a. reduction of 9 per cent. over last year on the Effective Vote. I think that every business man will agree with me that during the coming year for which these Estimates are making provision prices will be lower. The bonus which is paid throughout the Service to civilians has fallen; the price of material has fallen, wages in the dockyards have fallen, and prices
of food in the coming year are bound to be less than the prices were during the previous year. The price of living generally is much less than it was a year ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not much!"] Well, at any rate, the total reduction, according to the Admiralty figures, is only 9 per cent., and I submit that during the coming year the sovereign will buy more than it has done during the past year.
I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place, because, speaking on the 2nd May last year from his place behind the Government, he took grave exception to the Navy Estimates. May I again remind the House that those Estimates are only 9 per cent. less than last year. He said:
Look at the immense sum expended to-day on the Navy ‥.So far as human foresight can tell, there would be no great war for a very long time to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1922, col. 1203, Vol. 153.]
The Admiralty have flouted the Prime Minister in making the Government bring in these Estimates. Other hon. Members have pointed out that the Admiralty have flouted the recommendations of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, but I have no doubt the House will support the Admiralty tonight. The Admiralty have flouted the Geddes Committee, they have flouted the Prime Minister, if his words have any force, they have flouted a Select Committee of the House of Commons, and when these Estimates were presented to the public last Thursday their presentation coincided with a very clever Press propaganda on the part of the Admiralty. Recent hooks have revealed the very astute propaganda of that Department. The Admiralty, in these Estimates, have not had regard either to the real needs of the future, the clamant desire of public opinion and the dire financial situation which meets us to-day.
I shall show that these Estimates are £10,000,000 to £15,000,000 more than the necessities of the State demands. The three main points which determine the size of the Navy Estimates are, the number of men, the maintenance of the Fleet, and the efficiency of Admiralty administration. The First Lord reminded us that the total number of men for the coming year is to be 98,000. We laymen must speak at some disadvantage, but we
have the authority of the Geddes Committee, presided over by a former First Lord of the Admiralty, and composed, as it was, of the late Minister of Shipping and another well-known man, Lord lnchcape. That Committee stated, on page 17 of their Report, that, in their opinion, 86,000 men were all that was necessary for the Navy during the year 1929–23, and they made no allowance if the Washington Conference was successful. The Admiralty take provision in these Estimates for 98,000 men, and, in addition, the Estimates reveal that they have a further 50,000 men in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. Hon. Members also know that there is a vast untapped reservoir of able-bodied men in this country to-day, in the prime of life, who have taken their share in naval work during the War. Yet, with all these resources, and with potential reserves, the Admiralty are asking for 98,000 men for the coming year.
8.0 P.M.
The First Lord made great play with the large number of men in the American Navy. Such comparison is quite valueless, because an examination of the men in the American Navy clearly reveals that the major number of men in the American Navy are only serving for one or two years. To compare the efficiency, man for man, of the British Navy with the American Navy is, I suggest with due respect, not just to the high standard of efficiency of the officers and men in the British Navy. The total number of men that the Admiralty are asking for, judged by the Geddes Committee standard, and judged by the numbers of men in reserve, is excessive, and could be largely reduced without weakening the efficiency of the Navy. The second point in the Estimates is the very large sum of money proposed on Votes 9 and 10—a sum of 26½ million pounds this year. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Collie Valley in asking the Government to point out the foe which our Navy must meet. If I may be permitted to use a nautical simile, we have on our starboard side America with its great Navy, and on our port side, Japan. Which is our Navy directed against? It would be unthinkable that we should fight with America. The Washington Treaty is the second step towards the time when Britain and America will
join hands. There is to-day the Anglo-American Treaty, and last year the Washington Conference was successful. To maintain this large Navy while this good relationship exists to-day between this country and America and between Great Britain and Japan is, I say, not just to the overburdened taxpayers in this country.
Let me take an illustration of the Admiralty policy in this matter. Take the dockyards. We have heard for the first time that the Admiralty propose to spend a sum of £10,000,000 on the naval dockyard at Singapore. That is a very retrograde step. it is opposed to the naval policy of the past 50 years to construct dockyards at great expense far from the centre of the Empire, and I hope the Frist Lord of the Admiralty, before we pass this Vote, may give us some information as to what prompted the Admiralty to take that big step in the Far East. Not only are the Admiralty going to construct this place in the Far East, but the dockyards round our own coasts are to be maintained at a high level. Now that the German menace is removed, and there are only small fleets maintained by European Powers, for us to maintain Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devon port at their high standard is open to question. Not only is the Admiralty to spend money at Singapore, but an examination of their Estimates reveals that they intend to spend a million pounds for new works abroad, and they want a further million for the upkeep of these dockyards abroad. That is two million in all. The spirit of economy has not been instilled into the minds of the Admiralty, for they are spending recklessly, flinging millions about in the Far East. While making a great play with economy, their total reduction is only 9 per cent.
I am glad to see the Prime Minister in his place. A little earlier in the Debate I quoted some of his words used on the 2nd May last year, in which he pointed out the immense sums expended on the Navy today. Let Inc remind him that the effective Vote of the Naval Estimates only shows a reduction of 9 per cent., and that the immense sums which he deplored in May last year are being expended this year. These are but the first Estimates of the Conservative Government. They reveal the true policy of the Conservative Government, a policy of spending large
Sums of money on unproductive expenditure on armaments while curtailing expenditure on social services at home. In one respect their Estimates differ from the policy of the late Coalition Government. The policy of that Government was to spend large sums of money on armaments and social reforms. If that had been continued, this country would have been ruined. I stand for the policy of curtailing our unproductive expenditure while safeguarding our social services

at home. Look at this Estimate and the other Estimates. It clearly reveals that the spirit of economy has not been instilled into the Admiralty, and other Government Departments, and, is my hon. Friend persists in his Motion, I shall vote against it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 240 Noes, 153.

Division No. 33.
AYES.
[8.8 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Dawson, Sir Philip
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Alexander, E, E. (Leyton, East)
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lamb, J. Q


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Ednam, Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Astor, Viscountess
Ellis, R. G.
Lorimer, H. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lumley, L. R.


Banks, Mitchell
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Barnston, Major Harry
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Becker, Harry
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Manville, Edward


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Margesson, H. D. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Betterton, Henry B.
Forestler-Walker, L.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blundell, F. N.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Furness, G. J,
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Galbraith, J. F. w.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Brass, Captain W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Goff, Sir R. Park
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gould, James C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morris, Harold


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)


Bruford, R.
Gretton, Colonel John
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Bruton, Sir James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Halstead, Major D.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Nield, Sir Herbert


Butcher, Sir John George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harrison, F. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Cadogan, Major Edward
Harvey, Major S. E.
Paget, T. G.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Cassels, J. D.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Pease, William Edwin


Cautley, Henry Strother
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Penny, Frederick George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Perkins, Colonel E K.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Peto, Basil E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Philipson, H. H.


Clayton, G. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkins, John W. W.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Privett, F. J.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Lieut-Col. C. K.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Remer, J. R.


Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hughes, Collingwood
Remnant, Sir James


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roborts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jephcott, A. R.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Rogerson Capt. J. E.
Stanley, Lord
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
Wells, S. R.


Russell, William (Bolton)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Whitla, Sir William


Sanders, Rt. Han. Sir Robert A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Sandon, Lord
Sutcliffe, T.
Winterton, Earl


Shepperson, E. W.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wise, Frederick


Shipwright, Captain D.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Wolmer, Viscount


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Singleton, J. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Tubbs, S. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)
Wallace, Captain E.



Sparkes, H. W.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Waring, Major Walter
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.


NOES


Adams, D.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay day, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Richards, R.


Attlee, C. R.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A.
Herriotts, J.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barrie, [...] Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hillary, A. E.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Saklatvala, S.


Bonwick, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Salter. Dr. A.


Briant, Frank
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Buckle, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burgess, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Burnie. Major J. (Bootle)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns. John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Clarke Sir E. C.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford. East)
Snowden, Philip


Collie, Sir John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins. Pat (Walsall)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Leach, w.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Duffy, T. Gavan
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Ede, James Chuter
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Turner, Ben


Edge, Captain Sir William
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
M'Entee, V. L.
Warne, G. H.


Fairbairn, R. R.
McLaren, Andrew
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Falconer, J.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Foot, Isaac
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
White, H. G (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Millar, J. D.
Williams. David (Swansea, E.)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Morel, E. D.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Wintringham, Margaret


Groves, T.
Newbold, J. T. W,
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nichol, Robert
Wright, W,


Harbord, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harney E. A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Harris, Percy A.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hastings, Patrick
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Lunn.


Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put and agreed to.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That 99,500 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines he employed for the Sea Service, together with 1,423 for the Coast Guard and Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

being after a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question. put.

IRISH FREE STATE.

ARRESTS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

DEPORTATIONS TO IRELAND.

Mr. J. JONES: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I hope, Sir, you will excuse me if during the course of the discussion I may display a certain amount of ignorance, as is only natural. I do not claim to be a constitutional lawyer. I only claim to ask for my fellow citizens their constitutional rights. We have been led to understand that the common citizen has a common right. The question I asked the Home Secretary to-day was not raised because I am a believer in the policy of those who are trying to upset the Free State Government in Ireland. I have been one of their most persistent and consistent opponents ever since they adopted the policy of trying to destroy the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain and I have run some little risk in that connection. Therefore I am not here as a champion of those who want to destroy constitutional relationships between Great Britain and Ireland, but I believe even the Devil himself ought to get justice, even if he cannot always give it. Therefore I want to raise the case in the first place of one whom I happen to know. The only crime he has committed as far as I know—and I am acting upon information, personal of course—is that for some period he was the secretary of a branch of the Irish Self-Determination League in the East End of London, and he acted when all of us who are Irishmen stood on the same ground, and under similar circumstances will stand again, but when peace was made, when the two countries entered into an Agreement signed by the representatives of both, and when afterwards that Treaty was agreed upon by a Free Vote of the people North and South, and when eventually the Parliaments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were constituted we accepted the situation loyally as democrats and agreed on the principle that the majority must govern. However
we might have differed upon details we agreed upon the main principle. What has happened in the meantime? A certain number of people in the South and West of Ireland have repudiated the Treaty, have differed from the understandings arrived at between the representatives of the Government of both countries and have gone in for actions which have been more injurious to Ireland than anything the British Government could do against Ireland. None of us are defending the attitude which has been taken up, but there is a certain number of people in Great Britain who, because of their past history, have evidently been on the books of the Government of this country and have made themselves unpopular and, perhaps to some extent, undesirable. Amongst them there are men and women who have washed their hands of this policy ever since the Treaty was signed. Some of these have been arrested equally with those who may have been guilty.
The point I want to raise is this. Since when has deportation become a British industry? I know aliens have been deported for offences against the State. That may be justified in international law. What I am protesting against is the deportation of our own English-born citizens to another country because of a constitution which you have arranged. The Home Secretary to-day in answer to questions said he was doing so under certain defined powers contained in Acts of Parliament. I notice that one of the Acts was passed before the Treaty was signed, which in my opinion, although I am not an expert in legal maters, makes a considerable difference. The Regulations that existed under the Defence of the Realm Act in War time are not exactly the same as after War time. They have been modified very considerably in my opinion, although of course I would not claim to have the same kind of knowledge as some right hon. Gentlemen opposite. If a British citizen feels he has no security that at midnight policemen and detectives may break into his house, escort him to the coast and take him away to any place they like, no man in this House or outside can feel secure in the expression of his political views.
We have always posed as being leaders of constitutionalism all over the world, as being the Mother of Parliaments, whose Rules have been adopted by all other Parliaments, and we have been
looked upon as the champions of liberty all over the world. I am not asking you to be the champions of licence. If a man breaks the law, let him be tried where he lives. Surely the law of England is strong enough to punish an Irishman if he breaks the law. But we have a bigger argument than that. What is going to be the result of this policy of the wholesale deportation of suspected persons from Great Britain? It is to feed the Irregulars with an argument which they have been using all the time, and which they can use now with greater force than ever. The argument will be that the Free State Government of Ireland is in a regular relationship with the British Government, and while we are striving to break down the barriers between Great Britain and Ireland which existed in the past and trying to kill race prejudice, we now have an argument that the Government in Great Britain is used against the people in Great Britain of whom the Free State Government may have a suspicion.
I am not suggesting too much in asking this House to realise that citizens of this country who have been arrested, if they have committed a crime should be tried for it here. I am not defending any man who commits a crime. If a man wants to break the law, he must take the consequences of having done so. We are asking that this course of procedure shall be negatived and that we shall no longer put in force this policy, imitated from countries with which we have been at war, of sending away people because they have committed a crime. The ease to which I particularly referred in my question was that of a man who occupies a responsible position, whose whole life depends upon the position in which he now finds himself. I may be guilty also, because during the period this man was secretary of the Self-determination League in East Ham and Forest Gate was a member of the same organisation. I am not ashamed of it, and if there is any deportation to come along I will go. But I am not appealing for any mercy; I am only appealing for common justice, and common justice in this particular case, and the other case to which I can refer. The law of this country has been broken. I know that we shall have cases quoted against us, eases that occurred during the War. I have had some of
those cases and I know exactly what they mean. During the War Irishmen coming to Great Britain carrying on a campaign against the interests of the British Empire, might find themselves in durance vile subject to all sorts of penalties, but I am suggesting that the Treaty was signed between Great Britain and Ireland, as a consequence of the movement that took place in Ireland, after the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations were so amended as not to give the same power as existed under the Defence of the Realm Act as originally instituted.
Now we find the two Acts have got to be quoted. When did these two Acts become correlated so as to enable you to arrest any Irishman, and those not in the true sense of the term Irish, but who were born in this country, though probably of Irish parentage, and as a consequence are English citizens? What authority exists to deport English citizens from their own country to be tried in another country, it may be under martial law, for all we know? Have we agreed that martial law shall exist for English citizens? I suggest that we have amended those portions of the Defence of the Realm Act. Therefore, in moving my Motion, I ask those responsible for the government of this country to release all those persons who have been domiciled in Great Britain. Let them be tried here for any offence which they may have committed, and let the law of England deal with them as they happen to be English citizens.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I beg to second the Motion.
I have a case in my own constituency—Joseph Sweeny, 378, Windmill Hill, Motherwell, who has been arrested without any charge. I was informed by wire this afternoon that he was born in Scotland. I have taken care to verify that, and find that he was born in Falkirk, so that he is not an English subject but a Scottish subject, and just as Englishmen object to this infringement of what they believe to be their constitutional rights, so do the people of Lanarkshire object also. We claim the constitutional rights of Scotsmen as we understand them, just as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) claims the constitutional rights of Englishmen. We should have a clear definition of what these constitutional
rights are, and what are their limitations, or if there are limitations to their rights or to the Royal Prerogative under which it is possible that these men have been arrested.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: When I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) this afternoon my object was to find upon what constitutional procedure the action of yesterday took place. Every Member of this House must feel that when such proceedings take place it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the Government justifies itself. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, we do not associate ourselves in any way with any action of a hostile character taken against the Irish Free State. That is not the question that is involved at all. The question that we raise is, What power had my right hon. Friend to do what he has done, under what Regulations, under what Statute did he act in doing what he did. Did he take the power which he ought to take to safeguard the rights and liberties of the deported men? I am not a lawyer, and cannot approach the question from a legal technical point of view, but I do care for the proper administration of the law of this country, and for the rights, not, only of citizens of -this country, but also of people who are domiciled in this country and made subject to the law of the country. This is not merely a lawyer's point. We have got to bring to bear upon those questions a broad commonsense intelligence which will do justice to all people who are our citizens or our guests. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General is going to speak first, but we want to know straight away the Government's statement of its own case.
I am not going to assume that the men who were deported are guilty simply because the Government or the Home Secretary has deported them. It is my duty to satisfy myself that my right hon. Friend acted legally in the performance of that duty. I would like to know what pains he took to satisfy himself that whatever statements were made against them were sound evidence against them? I ask how long he took to investigate this matter? It could not have been done in 24 hours, for the domiciles of these people were scattered pretty far, north, south,
east and west. What machinery did he put into operation to investigate every case, as he had no business to deport any man unless the case against that man as a separate individual was established to his satisfaction? Moreover, what steps did he take to satisfy himself that the people deported were subjects of the Free State? Did he satisfy himself that he was not handing over any subject of this country to the independent jurisdiction of a, State that enjoys the status of an independent Dominion within the Empire? The right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon that he acted under Regulations drafted in accordance with the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act of 1920. I do not know what view is taken by my legal friends to the right and to the left of me. I take the layman's view, and I think it is the safest thing to take the layman's view to begin with.
What is the common-sense view of the Act of 1920? That Act was passed by this House at a time when the whole of Ireland was part of the sovereignty of this country. We were responsible for Cork, just as we were responsible for Belfast, and just as we were responsible for London. Ireland in 1920 was in rebellion against us we had our troops in Ireland; we had our police in Ireland. We were suppressing a rebellion that had broken out in Ireland. We drafted and passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland. Act, which applies not to the present disturbances in Ireland, but applied to the disorderly situation in Ireland when it was in rebellion against us. That was the purpose of the Act, and that is the meaning of the title of the Act. Certain Orders were issued under the Act. Regulation 14B in particular was drafted, not, for the purpose of sending people from England into Ireland, but for the purpose of deporting rebels in Ireland into England and to give them a residence here for the time being. What are the operative parts of 14B? So far as T can understand it and its application, the first paragraph applies to the case now before us, and the paragraph towards the end, which relates to arrests in Scotland and Ireland. It is purely technical, with no political substance in it. The political substance, as I understand it, is confined to the first Clause. What does it say? 14B enables the Secretary of State
by order to require a person forthwith, or from time to time, either to remain in or
to proceed to and reside in such place as may be specified in the Order.
Is that what happened to the deportees of yesterday? Are they compelled by Order to remain in the place to which they are deported? Take the next words—
and to comply with such directions as to reporting to the police as to movement,
and so on. And then it goes on
or to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.
Has the Home Secretary specified the place in which they are to be interned in Ireland? We ought to get information on that point. As has been said, a very important thing has happened since 1920. Ireland is no longer in a state of rebellion against us. It may be in a state of rebellion, internal to Ireland itself, but the rebellion is not against us. That is not all. Ireland now has the benefit of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, which we passed last Session. What happens? Supposing these Regulations still run on common-sense lines as well as in law, what happens? If these Regulations had been put into operation in 1920, and Irishmen had been arrested here for engaging in a conspiracy to aid the rebellion in Ireland in 1920, and if they had been deported from this country under those Regulations and sent to Ireland, they would live been under the jurisdiction of the British military or of some British authority for which a Minister in this House was responsible. Therefore, if injustice had been done to the deportees in 1920, this House, which is the guardian, as it must always remain, of British liberty and the rights of individual British citizens, was at liberty to raise the question of injustice, to censure the Minister, and to pass judgment on what he had done. That is no longer the case. That is the common-sense, Constitutional and good, sound Parliamentary point of view.
The Home Secretary agreed to deportation yesterday, and the arrested people have gone. They are now in Ireland. Suppose they were shot; I do not suggest it for a moment. Suppose something happened to them which we all agreed was an act of gross injustice. Who in this House is responsible for it? No one. I cannot question my right hon. Friend. I could question the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or his representative in this House, but supposing,
as a result of the answer to those questions being altogether unsatisfactory, one of my hon. Friends asked Mr. Speaker for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, what would Mr. Speaker say? Mr. Speaker would say at once that under the Irish Constitution Act this Parliament had handed all its responsibilities to the Irish Government. Quite properly Mr. Speaker would say, "Therefore I cannot allow the matter to he discussed, and I will not accept, as being in order, a Motion for Adjournment." Is not that a substantial argument? I am quite certain the very last man who would resist that argument is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Therefore he must see that the responsibility which he took upon himself in allowing these Regulations to be regarded as alive in the circumstances of 1923, is an enormously greater responsibility than that which he would have taken upon himself had he deported under these Regulations in 1920. Moreover, I want to get some more information about the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon when replying to a question.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): The Advisory Committee?

Mr. MacDONALD: Yes, the Advisory Committee. It seems to me this is very much a case of hanging a man first, and trying him afterwards. That is why my first question was what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to see that the evidence which justified deportation was good evidence. He replied to me this afternoon on the lines that he himself had been satisfied, that his legal advisers had been satisfied, and if the men concerned still had a grievance, then this Advisory Committee had been set up to investigate any statement they might make. I want to know what is the Advisory Committee? What is its power? Who are its members, and who is the legal authority? Who is President of it? That is the first point. The second point is: Whilst they are investigating in order to give advice, what is to be the position of the deported person? Is he to be kept in gaol in Ireland, or may he come here and await the advice which the Committee is going to give? The third point is this: Supposing the Advisory Committee comes to a conclusion upon the two cases which were cited this afternoon,
the one cited by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) of a person who is a British subject, and who, as the hon. Member says, was not, as a matter of fact, in recent times involved in any political conspiracy against the Irish Free State, and the other case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), the case of mistaken identity. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same case."] Is it the same case? Well, it does not matter. [Laughter.] It surely does not matter when it is a case of grave injustice being done. I quite honestly fell into a mistake. I understood there were two cases. It does not matter if there is only one; that is enough for me. I think one has as much right to justice as half-a-dozen. Let us take this one case. Supposing the Advisory Committee find on investigation that this case is genuine as stated by my two hon. Friends, what power has this Government to take it back? Has my right hon. Friend made an agreement with the Irish Free State that if any mistake has been made they guarantee to rectify that mistake? These are questions upon which, I make bold to say, every Member of the House of Commons who has got any respect at all for the duties of the House will insist upon getting information. It is not enough for a Minister to say, "There is a very bad state of affairs in Ireland and therefore I am going to act "—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the actual expression" according to the convenience of the Irish Government." No. Hon. Members behind me have done quite as much for established self-government in Ireland as any other hon. Members? We believe in it quite as much, we back up that government quite as much, but that is not enough to justify deportation from this country upon such Regulations as those which my right hon. Friend has quoted. I therefore hope without any further delay, and in order to enable some hon. and right hon. Members who are more entitled to address the House than I am—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—on a point of law, yes, but not on points of policy. I know my duty to this House. I know the duty that must be performed in this House. Whatever the substance of the rights or wrongs of the case may be, this House must satisfy itself that the administration of the Government, especially in
matters like this, is sound, is sane, is safe and is in accordance not with convenience but with law.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May I say before I proceed any further, how grateful I am for the sane and sensible way in which this case has been put before the House? The hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment made a speech of which nobody in the House could complain as extravagant, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked a series of questions which he is perfectly entitled to ask and to which I hope I shall be able to give an adequate answer. I have a grave responsibility in this matter, and I hope I have taken it as seriously as even the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition could wish me to take it. want to explain to the House how the matter appears to me, not as a lawyer—the legal points will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—hut as a plain, simpleminded layman whose duty it is to try to preserve the safety of this country, and to assist the Irish Free State in restoring order in that country. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment referred to the particular case which he raised this afternoon, of a man called FitzGerald. It is the same case as that referred to by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) earlier in the day. Those who arrested this man were perfectly aware of the existence of another man of the same name, but there is no doubt whatever that the man who was arrested is the man whom the Free State Government asked us to arrest, and if they find when they have got him over there that he is the wrong man—[Interruption]. The whole contention of the hon. Gentleman is that this man was anti-Free State, and is now pro-Free State.

Mr. J. JONES: No: I never said anything of the kind. I said that, in common with all other Irishmen in the South and West of Ireland and Great Britain. he was a supporter of the Trish Self-determination League, and he has since dissociated himself, since the new policy of the Irregulars began.

Mr. LANSBURY: You ought to know. HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This Debate so far has been conducted on very sane lines, so
let us try and continue on those lines. I say that if this man is now an upholder of the Free State Government, there is no reason to suppose that the Free State Government will wish to intern him, or to keep him interned.

Mr. JONES: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to got a fair case stated. This man is in danger of losing his job immediately. He is a teacher in our district, likely to lose, not merely his job, but superannuation, and it means a great deal to him.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I want, if the House will kindly follow me, to explain exactly why I have taken the action I have in this matter. It has been brought to my notice, in the last few weeks, that there have been increasing activities on the part of an organisation acting on a military basis and organised by a man who describes himself as "Officer Commanding, Britain," not only for the purpose of assisting those who are out to overthrow the Free State Government in Ireland, but also for the purpose of persuading them, if possible, to engage in outrages in this country. I have a good deal of evidence of this, and I should like to give the House some of the evidence that I have got. I have here a letter addressed to the Officer Commanding, Britain, from the Irish Republican Army, General Headquarters, Dublin, 26th January of this year:
Yours of 24/1/23 to hand. Note you have returned from Glasgow visit, and await particulars of your detailed report. When I receive your general report, I shall be in a better position to send an officer to discuss matters with you. I consider it too much of a risk for you to report here. We have been informed that Stokes guns can be purchased in England. I daresay you have done your utmost as to the possibility of securing small artillery. You realise that one of these, with sufficient shells, would finish the war here very quickly, so you should strain every nerve on this possibility.
9.0 P.M.
Here is another, signed by the "Brigadier Officer Commanding, Scotland," and addressed to the "Quartermaster-General, Irish Republican Army, Dublin," dated 27th February, and I quote this in order to show the part that is being played in assisting the Republicans in Ireland:
When the late Commandant-General R. O'Connor gave me the money, his instructions to me were, 'Get the stuff at any cost or by any method, but get it at once.
One round is worth more now than a hundred will be in a week.' The most of the girls arrived in Dublin with the stuff within three days, and had it delivered to the Gresham. … From the time of my last interview with the late Commandant H. Roland until January, all headquarters' stuff sent over by me went to headquarters. It was delivered to the following: Miss H … y, Miss D … ly, Miss S … or, Miss O'M … in, and Mrs. D …e y. I wish to bring under your notice the very bad treatment our brigade has received. Twenty of our men took part in the fight. After the fall of the Gresham, they were ordered to hold themselves in readiness for further orders. The men had no money. I had to support them. I had to pay £12 a week for lodgings alone, costing me in all £120. You may contend I had no right to keep men in Dublin from June to August. I was expecting them to be taken out of my hands every week. They were handed from one Dublin officer to another until they were arrested, and are all now in prison.
That is the 27th February. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did they get the arms from Germany, like Carson did?"] I now want to lay before the House one or two proofs that they were also contemplating offences, or trying to stimulate people to commit offences, in this country. Here is a letter from the Republican Director of Intelligence in Ireland to the Officer Commanding, Britain:
It is especially necessary that you appoint some able man or woman to look alter this end of the thing in London. I want to be kept informed of all things concerning us winch may be happening in the .British Foreign Office and in James McNeill's Department. I have an idea that Art. O'Brien can fix up some person in the former place, and he might also he able to get someone in the 'High Commissioner's' Office. I am very keen on having these two offices attended to at once, even if it should mean that we have to pay for our information.
That refers to Mr. Art. O'Brien, who in one of the men who have been sent over to Ireland, and who recently described himself as the Ambassador of the Irish Republican State. Here is a letter again to the Officer Commanding, Britain:
We are considering carrying out active hostilities in England, owing to the advanced development of the situation here. The activities would mean a general destructive policy. Let me have your views on the possibility, judging by the resources at your disposal. (Signed) L.L.

Mr. MacNEILL WEIR: Ever heard of Pigott? [Laughter.]

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It may be very amusing to hon. Members opposite, but to the British public—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We know that the same thing has been read about us.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: —it is not particularly satisfactory to deal with activities which mean a general destructive policy. Here is another letter, written to the Officer Commanding, Britain, from the Quartermaster-General, Irish Republican Army. This was a reply letter to the Officer Commanding in Britain and is dated 17th January:
Grenades.—At present rate I could not promise you any. It is impassible to get an iron-foundry going here. Hence the output is very small, I am having some aluminium alloy grenades made, and having them packed with shrapnel, which, I hope, will be effective. These shall -be tested this week. If suceessful, I may be able to send you some.
I have quoted these letters in order to show that not only was there an active organisation going on here in this country to attack the Free State Government in Ireland, but that efforts were also being made to persuade people to engage in a campaign of destruction in this country. Anyone who had seen these letters would naturally feel that some attention should be paid to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members opposite are not responsible for the safety of the British public.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are as much as you.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am responsible. It is quite impossible, and would be impossible, for any sane Englishman in my position to remain passive with this information in his possession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prosecute them!"]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A big English-man—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I hope hon. Members will allow the Home Secretary to make his statement.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I want to tell the House quite frankly how I proceeded in this matter. I got into consultation with the Free State Government. I consulted my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. I satisfied myself that it was quite lawful to proceed under Regulation 14n of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, and with the Free State Government it was decided to arrest and
send over for internment there a number of persons who were known to them and to us. Every person whom they desired and was so sent over was of Irish origin, and was sent over at their request. It has been asked why were these persons not interned in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes," and "Quite right!"] If hon. Members will allow I will say—[An HON. MEMBER: "Get ahead!"] will get ahead if I am allowed. In the first place, it is a question primarily for the Irish Government. Their existence, and law and order under the Free State Government are at stake. It is primarily a matter for them to deal with those who are menacing law and order in that country. Again, there is no doubt whatever in my mind that it is more agreeable to Irish sentiment for Irishmen to be dealt with by the Irish Free State Government, than by the British Government. There is still—unreasonably I admit—but still no doubt considerable prejudice against Great Britain in Ireland. That prejudice would have been used by the Irregulars in Ireland to try to get sympathy with them if these men had been interned in England—sympathy which they do not deserve. Such sympathy, too, might come from Irishmen, even the supporters of the Free State. Therefore I say I think it was perfectly reasonable and sensible to allow the Free State Government to deal with these persons

Mr. S. WALSH: English citizens?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All these people are British citizens. I have already said I have the right—and the Attorney-General will re-inforce what I have said —under this particular Regulation. The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me a certain number of questions. He wanted to know how I had proceeded. I proceeded, as I was obliged to do, under Regulation 14B, and after consulting the competent military authority. I was also asked as to the Advisory Committee—

Mr. MacDONALD: Who, may I ask, was the competent, military authority?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The military authority described in the Regulations. In this case it was Major-General Ready, Director of Personal Services at the War Office. As to the Advisory Committee under this Regulation, I have the power and the duty, if necessary, to set up an
Advisory Committee, and I propose to do so. The hon. Gentleman asks me who arc on that Committee. I am not able to give him the names, for it is only a Committee of three, but I can say this, that I have secured as Chairman of the Committee a late Lord Chief Justice (Lord. Trevethin), and it will be open for anyone to appeal to this Advisory Committee. In answer to another question put by the hon. Gentleman, he seemed to assume, as did the Mover of this Motion, that the Free State Government wore almost certain to do some injustice to these people. I do not quite understand why those who claim to be oven more ardent supporters of the Free State Government than I myself am should assume that that Government are likely to do injustice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is you who have done the injustice.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If they are not going to do an injustice—

Mr. LINFIELD: Clive them the same as you gave MacDonald!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman said that this Regulation was passed and was intended to be used at a time when the Irish Government was against us; when Ireland was fighting against us. It was, he said, a Regulation for the Restoration of Order in Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman say that we are not to use our powers for the restoration of order in Ireland, when the Irish Government and ourselves agree that they should be used? Surely, if it was competent to use those powers when Ireland was fighting against us, it is more important to use them now, when they have agreed with us to a Treaty, and surely we should help them under these circumstances to keep order. I think it is only right, in answer to what has been said, to say that nothing more than internment is proposed at the present time.

Mr. T. SHAW: Is that all?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If it be found necessary to take proceedings for more serious offences, the necessary warrants would have to be applied for and endorsed by a magistrate in this country before any further action is taken. The Free State Government have agreed that, before any action beyond internment is
taken, that they will consult our Government and obtain the agreement of our Government to any further action.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Has it been agreed how long internment without trial is to go on?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: With regard to all the legal points which have been raised I must leave them to be answered by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. MARDY JONES: You are the responsible person.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, I know I am the responsible person, and I am taking the responsibility on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. What is more, I am also taking the responsibility on the ground of common sense, and because it is my duty to do so. It is my duty to do so not only for the protection and safety of the people of this country, but also to enable the Irish Free State to put down this terrible campaign which is going on against them. I should like before I sit down to quote the words very recently used on the 10th March by the "Freeman's Journal":
Mr. Thomas Johnson (Labour), speaking on the Motion for the adoption of the Supplementary Estimates, said, if there was any indication that the attack on the State was to he effective, and if pursued sufficiently vigorously would bring the State into ineffectiveness. he thought it well to say new that the people of Saorstat Eireann, as soon as they realised that the attack upon the economic life of the country, the communications of the country, and the general material structure of the country was designed to bring about a chaotic condition of affairs and political ineptitude, the sooner would they realise that they should do now, as they were prepared to do two years ago—throw in every partical and every item of their economical, industrial, and material resources to save the State.
We are going to support the Irish Government in carrying out their policy, and I appeal to the House to support: me in maintaining that I have done the only thing that was possible for a person in my position to do for the safety of the country and the welfare of our people.

Mr. HASTINGS: I cannot help feeling that some hon. Members in this House do not quite appreciate that there are at least some of us on these benches—and I am satisfied in my own mind that included in that number are both the Law Officers of the Crown—who feel that
this act is one of the most deadful things that has been done in the history of our country. I am satisfied that both those right hon. and learned Gentlemen must be, or at least would be in their private capacity, of precisely that opinion. I do not think some hon. Members opposite can have the faintest notion of what this Regulation means, or they would not laugh as they have been doing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rot!"] When an hon. Member on this side called out "Rot!" he behaved badly, but we expected good manners from the hon. Member opposite who has just made the same interruption. [Interruption.] I have not the slightest intention of finishing my speech until I have said what I have got to say. I am going to endeavour in quite a few words to point out to hon. Members opposite what this Regulation means, because I am satisfied that they cannot know what it means. [Interruption.] I am quite accustomed to speaking for a considerable time, and I am accustomed to speak in a place where one has courtesy or else the usher turns them out.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members on both sides should keep silent, and refrain from interruptions.

Mr. HASTINGS: This Regulation, which we are now considering, is copied in terms from the Regulation which was passed under the Defence of the Realm Act. Immediately that was passed it was put into operation, under these circumstances. A Russian, who was in this country, naturalised, was interned under this very Regulation. That immediately raised an outcry throughout, the entire country, solely on these grounds, that never before, since days almost immemorial, had any person, even a naturalised English subject, been sent into internment without trial. It was even up in the House of Lords. There was dissenting opinion as to whether, even in time of war, this Regulation was—I hope hon. Members, so far as possible, will abstain from laughing too audibly [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, go on!"

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand why the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is laughing.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was not laughing.

Mr. HASTINGS: It was held, after a great deal of very difficult argument, that owing to a terrible danger in which the country then was, a Regulation such as this, although it abrogated all the powers upon which English freedom was based, was reasonable and proper under those circumstances. Now there comes this, precisely the same, reintroduced; and, as I understand it, the Home Secretary says to-night that it is perfectly proper for him to arrest a British subject in this country. He even says that if it is the wrong man they have arrested, that man may be sent back to his own home under the powers of another Government; the explanation being that it is agreeable to another Government that they should have him in their custody rather than he should be in ours, and that he should be sent away for internment. The man does not know for how long; he does not know for what offence; and he does not know for what punishment. I suggest that it is not treating the House with respect to say that, providing this man is to he tried, another Government should say he is to be sent back to this country to stand his trial.
I would ask either of the Law Officers if, in the history of this country during the last 1,000 years, there ever has been a case of a British subject treated like this, except after 1914. To my mind it is too dreadful that this state of affairs should continue. Whenever we face the Government with what has been done prior to last November, they say they are not responsible for what the last Government did. To-day, they have sent over to Ireland for internment without trial, without limit of time without any knowledge of the punishment, without ally knowledge as to whether the right man has been arrested, a. British, subject. Apparently the only answer is that he is to be sent back if the foreign Government decide that they—[HON. MEMBERS: "Foreign?" and "Withdraw!"]—I can remember in this very House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Does the hon. and learned Member mean to say that the Irish Free State Government is a foreign government?

Mr. HASTINGS: Does the hon. and learned Member for York think that interruption was either necessary or desirable? I should have thought it was
apparent to anybody that the only materiality of such an observation was an independent Government. What does it mater— [HON. MEMBERS: "Dominion government." and "Under the King"] Surely, hon. Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under the King!"] Of course, if the hon. Member wants to sing "Under the King"—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member will address the Chair, he will not get so much objectionable interruption.

Mr. HASTINGS: May I express my regret for not having addressed the Chair. Of course, one is a little apt to be taken off one's argument if there arc repeated interruptions. Unless one does turn a little bit towards another part of the House, one is always met by the observation that hon. Members cannot hear. I have expressed my regret that I have not addressed all my remarks to the Chair. May T point out to the House what is happening, because it may be there is something which we really do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Of course, one cannot prevent interruptions of that sort, but haw can we know? We are told nothing at all. How do you suppose that these men who were arrested know what is going to happen to them? What power is there? If one looks at these Regulations —I do not want to stray across the ground into any legal argument, but. I am quite sure that the Attorney-General, if he will only help us in this matter, must feel the same—one reads this Regulation—it is perfecly true I may read it perhaps as a lawyer; I cannot help that—and I find in it this provision: "No person who is not the subject of a State at war with His Majesty." I am sure no hon. Members can think that is Ireland. It includes express provisions "for the consideration, by one of such Advisory Committees, of any representations he may make against the Order." I understand that the Home Secretary has not even appointed such a Committee. These poor men—one hardly likes to describe them in language one can think of—have been arrested under this Order, which gives them these rights. I understand—I can see hon. Members still courteously laughing because we say we do not know—they have been sent to Ireland, and are in Ireland now.
To what Committee can they appeal? Are they to appeal to a Committee appointed in England? Are they to appeal to a Committee in Ireland? Are they to ask the Irish Government to ask the Home Secretary of this Government to appoint a Committee to which they can appeal? What rights have these men got? I frankly confess, in spite of all the ribald things and laughter we have heard, that we, on these benches, are somewhat appalled by the thought that men to-clay can he arrested, and that the Home Secretary can get up and say that if the wrong man has been arrested he can be sent back. The wrong man cannot apply for ahabeas corpus.He cannot go to an English judge, because he is not in England. He cannot, I suppose, go to an Irish judge, because the answer there will be, if he does, "You ought to have applied to this Committee of the Home Secretary." There is not a Committee. What on earth can be the feelings of these men in Ireland to-clay? How can they know to whom they can apply? How can they know what offence they have committed, and who can set them free? Really for hon. Members in this House, which I have aways been brought up to believe—

Mr. PATRICK FORD: On a point of Or der—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) inside the precincts of the House? Is he within the Chamber?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for North Edinburgh rise to a point of Order?

Mr. FORD: If it is not a point of Order, I am not in order. If it is, I want to know if the people who are being discussed are Irish subjects, because that seems to have an important bearing on this Debate?

Mr. HASTINGS: Speaking with all respect to the House, may I call your attention to the fact, Sir, that when we say we want to know these things, the same hon. Members laugh, yet when they get up they think they are entitled to know the very things that we want to know. We do not know whether they are Irish or British subjects. We cannot ask them, for they are not in this country. They cannot consult anyone in
this country, and the result is that these men have been taken out of the country. I have heard hon. Members discussing in great detail whether or not, in the case of criminals escaping from this country to Ireland, there would be any power to get them back except extradition. I have heard hon. Members actually discussing the question whether, if a man committed murder in England and fled to Ireland, we could get him back without extradition. Now hon. Members are treating with ribald contempt any objection on the part of people who honestly and seriously want to know what the position is of these men who are our fellow subjects and who have been taken out of this country and sent for internment for an indefinite period. I am told that the Attorney-General is going to give us a legal view of the question, and in so far as the Home Secretary has given us the practical view, I do not think it has pleased anyone, because when he tells us he has not yet set up the Committee which I should have thought he was bound by law to do, and when he says that it. is a question for the Irish Government whether it is agreeable to them to send British subjects over to Ireland without trial, it does not appeal to me, I do not think it appeals to the majority of the House, and I am certain it will not appeal to the majority of the country.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I do not propose to comment on the last speech, except to say that I do not think any Member in any part of the House would care to differentiate, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has done, between the private and public motives of the Law Officers of the Crown. In my belief the Home Secretary, in taking the action he has taken, has been actuated by the best motives, but I am profoundly disturbed at that action. In the speech the right hon. Gentleman delivered just now he revealed the existence of a very serious state of affairs. He read several letters to the House which, to say the least, disclosed a strongprima faciecase of offences not only in Ireland, but of offences in this country. There is no suggestion that the men who have been deported were Irish citizens only. I look upon this matter, I hope, dispassionately. What would have been clone in the case of a citizen of Australia or of South
Africa? What would have been the ordinary course of justice in such a case? As regards offences of this kind very many minute Regulations chiefly for the protection of the accused person and for the good government of the State are laid down. If an offence is committed by someone whom it is desired to charge in Australia an indictment would be prepared, a sworn declaration would be made, and the accused person would have a right to inspect the indictment, to peruse the sworn declaration, and to know exactly with what he is charged. Further than that he would be taken before a public magistrate and charged openly, and he would have the right to defend himself or to employ someone to defend him. That is exactly, as I venture to think, the position which was revealed by the Home Secretary to-day.
What I am disturbed about is this, I do not pretend to understand the legal right under which the Dome Secretary acted, but I venture to think it would have been far better if, instead of invoking a Defence of the Realm Regulation of this kind with all its far-reaching consequences, these men had been subjected to the ordinary procedure of law and had been charged in the ordinary way. I have not heard any explanation why that course was not adopted. There is a much more serious aspect of the case. The Home Secretary has indicated a serious state of affairs. He has indicated serious offences against the law of this country, not only by Irish, citizens, but by citizens of this country as well. If any case of this sort was sent to the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if the facts stated were those stated in this House this evening, I believe they would order the law to be set in motion at once. I cannot understand why that course has not been taken. I am also very troubled, apart from the individual interest of these men, with regard to the future course of law in this country. I put on one side the question whether these men have acted wrongfully or not; there is a very strong ease that they have, but it is a most remarkable course to take for citizens of this country to be deported without charge, and to be handed over to another State. It may have a serious consequence from the point of view of British citizenship. The
Government of this country has no control over the man once he has been handed over to another State. I hope I am not using exaggerated language, but I cannot recall any precedent of tins kind, and I look upon this with serious apprehension.
There is only one final observation I desire to make and that is as to the effect of these proceedings in Ireland. I do not pretend to understand Irish politics, and have never intervened in an Irish Debate in this House, but the only satisfactory feature that I have seen in connection with the present Irish settlement is that, so far as we can, we have now left that unhappy country to administer its own affairs—that we have stood on one side and have left the opposing sides to do the best they can in their own land. I venture to think, however, that this may be regarded in many respects as a direct intervention by the British Government once again in the affairs of Ireland. [Interruption.] I am quite sincere in my view. After all these months, when we have stood aside, and when, at any rate, no finger could be pointed at the British Government for taking one part or another in this affair, this may very well be regarded as a re-entry of the British Government into the internal affairs of Ireland. I may say in conclusion that the more I think over this mater, and the more aspects from which I regard it, I feel that a serious error of judgment has been made. I venture to think that the wiser course, in the interests of this country and of Ireland, would have been to have brought these men to trial, either in this country or in Ireland, and I view with the gravest apprehension the course that has just been taken.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I find myself in general agreement both with the views of the hon. Member who has just spoken and with the temper in which he addressed the House. I am not at all disposed, and I do not think that anyone who has ever had the responsibility of being Home Secretary will ever be disposed, to speak lightly or contemptuously of the effort which every Home Secretary makes, in very difficult circumstances, to decide what is the right course to take. I remember once being told by a Prime Minister that the office of Home Secretary was difficult because his constant
occupation was, every day and every week, to prevent a second-class row from becoming a first-class row. Anyone who has ever served at the Home Office knows that every week matters arise about which a decision has to be arrived at. If the decision is given rightly, no one hears about it, but if there is a mistake it is only too likely to lead to a very serious situation. I think myself that a mistake may well have been made in the exercise of this discretion, but everyone must see that the material before the Home Secretary was material on which he was bound to take grave and careful action. In the same way, I am not at all disposed to doubt that the Home Secretary has had correct legal advice. In point of fact, this exact question, as a matter of law, has been decided by our own Court of Appeal. In 1921 this exact question was raised about a man who was arrested here in England for the purpose of being deported to Ireland in order that he might there be interned. That case, after first coming before the High Court, Went to the Court of Appeal, where there was a difference of opinion, but two Judges out of three thought that the action of the then Home Secretary was within the law. I agree with the Leader a the Opposition that this is not primarily a legal question at all, but it is just as well to realise that the action taken is, in fact, according to the view of our Courts, within the law.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the case that some of us are raising is this: A man coming from Ireland who commits a crime in England can he deported, but the case about which I am talking is that of men who have been born and bred in England, and are still citizens of England.

Sir J. SIMON: I quite follow my hon. Friend, but I do not want to spend time over what I do not think is the really important question. The only observation I wanted to make on the legal aspect was that, although the decision of our Court of Appeal was that this action was within the law, they, obviously, regarded it as carrying the law to the extreme confines to which it could be, taken. I notice that Lord Justice Stratton, who was the dissenting Judge, made this observation, and I think my hon. Friend will find himself largely in agreement with it:
It is clear in this case the application of Regulation 14B to England means that it is possible to take any person who, like this boy, has lived five years in England, to shut him up for an indefinite time without telling him the charge-against him, without bringing him to trial, at the uncontrolled discretion of an officer of the Executive. In my view, such a result should not follow unless the clearest words are used by Parliament. In this case Parliament has not used, in my opinion, those clear words, and, therefore, I think the appeal should be allowed.
The House will see, therefore, that, although the view of the majority of the Court of Appeal was that this was lawful, it was certainly carrying the law to the extreme bounds to which it could be carried, and I notice that the comments made in legal journals at the time were of this character. I will read, for example, from the "Solicitors' Journal" of the 2nd July, 1921, an observation which I think the House will see is very relevant to the present matter. It is as follows:
If the Legislature had intended to give powers to arrest without trial persons in England suspected of such conduct, it would surely have said so in plain terms, instead of leaving Law Officers and Judges to read in such meaning by rather artificial modes of interpretation.
Again, the same paper says:
We can only repeat here that the reasoning of the Court does not seem to us in the least convincing. If Parliament had intended to give the Executive power to arrest anybody they please in England and intern him in Ireland, merely because sonic official may bonâ fidebelieve that person a danger to Irish peace, we cannot understand why the Legislature did not say so. A power which can only be read into a Statute by dexterous logic-chopping ought not to be presumed to be there.
Although the law may be on the side of what has been done, it none the less does leave a very serious question of discretion and policy. I feel that the Home Secretary does not seem to me to have faced the really serious question of policy which was so plainly put before the House by the leader of the Opposition. For instance, the Home Secretary seems to think that because two Governments—two friendly Governments, both under the British Crown, the Government here at home, and the Free State Government in Ireland—agreed upon a course of action, therefore, that course of action is justified. We must for this purpose remember that these persons, whatever be
the suspicions against them, and I am not minimising the suspicions, have certainly never been brought to trial. It may be that they never will be brought to trial. Internment does not mean imprisonment for punishment; it means indeterminate detention without trial; and, as I followed what the Home Secretary said just now, no arrangement or understanding exists at all as to how long these people are to remain interned without trial. I cannot help thinking that, if that be so, it is a very poor excuse to say that the Free State Government and the Government here at home have agreed that this is the best course to take.
Then there is the second point which the Leader of the Opposition put, and it really goes to the fundamentals of the matter. When these Regulations were last used, and an English Court said that what was done was within the law, there was still a common Government between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain, so that the transfer of a man living here in London across the Irish Channel to Ireland, still left him under the control of the same central Government. It was a strong thing to do, but, at any rate, it was not moving him beyond the control and range of those who undertook the action. It is a wholly different thing to use this power, whether it is a technical and lawful power or not, to take up a man here in London, who is under one jurisdiction, and to hand him over to the authorities of, I will not say a foreign Government, but a separate and independent Government. I think the hon. Member who spoke last was quite right when he said that the position is exactly the same as if we were to arrest a man here in London on suspicion and, without trial, hand him over to the Dominion of Australia or to the Dominion of Canada. Nobody doubts the good faith of any of these Dominion Governments, but, none the less, to do anything of that kind would be, I think we will all agree, a gross betrayal of the ordinary liberties of ordinary people living in this country.
I do not question that the Home Secretary did his best to decide the course that he should take in a difficult matter, and I do not doubt that he is backed up by good legal opinion, but is it, as a matter of fact, a wise act, when we are at this stage, to use internment, and internment by a
Government that is separate from ourselves, as a means with which we deal with cases of suspicion of crime? It seems to me to be a most serious proposition to lay down. I agree with all that was said by my hon. Friend just now that, if there be, as there must be, some very serious material which might properly be used in a criminal Court against some of those who were suspected, then surely the course that we ought to take is to use that material by those methods and not to adopt or to encourage the use of internment for an indefinite time against men who have never been accused, who have never been tried and who have now been passed outside our own jurisdiction and under the control of a Government other than ourselves. These are the points which arise. They are not, as the Leader of the Opposition said, lawyers' points at all, but they are points which every hon. Member is much concerned to hear discussed, because on these points turn essential questions connected with the liberty of every British citizen.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. T. SHAW: The Home Secretary is generally very courteous in his statement and very logical in his argument, but he made some observations which I, as a Member of this House, profoundly resent, when he spoke about Gentlemen on the other side being responsible for the safety of the country, and when he said: "We are thinking of the safety of the country." I thought then, and I am going to express the thought now, that I am as much a Briton as he is, and as much responsible for the safety of the country as any Member of this House, and I resent any implication that in any sense Gentlemen on the other side are more British or more concerned for the safety of the country than we are Having raised my protest against that assumption of superiority as Britons, may I deal with the case as it presents itself to me? The right hon. Member for Spin Valley (Sir J. Simon) quoted the case of a man who had been living five years in this country. That was evidently the case of a man of Irish nationality, but the case that has been presented to-day is the case of a man of English nationality who, without charge against him, without being heard in his own defence, has been banded over to another Government. That is the case that we bring before the House,
and I hope that those hon. Members who believe in the liberties of Englishmen will seriously consider this matter. Is it a safe thing to do, to admit the principle that an Englishman may be arrested and may be deported without his being able to say a word in his own defence, and without having a trial? That is the issue before the House. I want to ask the legal Gentleman who will speak for the Government, whether it he not possible under British law to prosecute in England any Englishman who by his action is endangering our relationship with any Dominion? If it be possible under the English law, by fair and open trial, to try any man who is endangering our relationship with a Dominion, why was this man not brought before a British Court and given an opportunity of stating his case There is neither principle nor justice in taking a man from his borne, without telling him the charge, and handing him over to another Government on the allegation that he may have been guilty of conspiring against the safety of that other Government.
Whatever our point of view in politics may be, surely every Briton will hold the view that it is one of the proudest things in the record of Britain that every man is supposed to have the right to be heard in his own defence. This man has not been heard in his own defence. He has been handed over to another Government, without any guarantee that he will get justice from that Government, and certainly if he be wrongly accused he will, in any ease, have suffered great disadvantage through the action of His Majesty's Government. Iii view of all the circumstances, in view of the possibility of our trying this man here for anything that he may have done, in view of the right of every Englishman to state his own case in his own defence in a public way, and in view of the danger to which citizens are exposed when on the order of any Minister a man may be deported, I hope the House will hold to the view, not that the Free State shall be attacked, but that the rights of Englishmen shall be safeguarded. There is no man on these benches but who would do everything that is humanly possible to help the Free State Government. There is no man on these benches whose desires for a peaceful Ireland are not as great as the desires of any hon. or right
hon. Member opposite, but at the same time that we desire that Ireland shall be peaceful and that the Free State shall be successful, we desire that Englishmen's rights shall be safeguarded, and that the days oflettres de cachetin this country should be over.
I appeal to hon. Members not to treat this as a matter of party politics, but to look upon it from the point of view of the right of an Englishman to be heard in his own defence, to have fair play, and not to be arrested without charge. If he is arrested he should be arrested on a definite charge, and given a definite trial in his own country, and if he be guilty, let him be sentenced in his own country. It is a monstrous injustice that an Englishman should be deported to another country, without a chance of being heard in his own defence, and without a chance of knowing the charge against him.

Sir J. BUTCHER: This Debate has assumed a very different character since the speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). When this Motion was asked for it was represented that some gross illegality had been committed, that the Home Secretary had gone entirely beyond his powers, and that he had been guilty, not of some small indiscretion, but of a grave illegality in sending this man to Ireland, when there was no power to intern at all. I am extremely glad that a former Home Secretary has put the matter in its true light. He pointed out, what no lawyer will deny, that there is an absolute legal right under the Act enacted by the last Parliament for the preservation of order in Ireland, and under the Regulations made in connection with that Act, for the Home Secretary to act as he has done. There is no doubt whatever that the Home Secretary's act was legal. Therefore, the only question is, of the two courses open to the Home Secretary under these Regulations, which was the wiser in a matter of discretion? Some may have one view and some another. I should have thought myself that in a matter of this sort the Home Secretary, who had all the facts at his command, was to be trusted to take the wisest course, and I think he has probably taken the wisest course. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Spen Valley express his objection to the Home Secretary acting
under Regulation 14B, because that is his own particular babe; that is the product of his own brain, and a very good product it is. It has been repeatedly acted upon in this country during and since the War; but I want to say a word about the very remarkable piece of special pleading of the hon. and learned Member for Walls-end (Mr. Hastings). The hon. and learned Gentleman has earned great distinction in the Courts of Law, but I confess he made a little too much of the relatively very small amount of interruption to which he was subjected to in this Debate. We are subjected to interruption on this side of the House and we do not object to these interruptions. I thought, the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was listened to with great patience. The hon. and learned Gentleman states that Ireland is a foreign country subject to a foreign Government. That is grotesquely untrue. If it were true, he ought to have known that this Order could not possibly have been made, because the Order only permits of internment within the British Isles. I think it is unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member for Wallsend. who is so learned in other branches of the law, did not spare a little more time to look into the facts with which we are dealing, and he would then have known that to deport anyone to a foreign country would have been absolutely impossible under this Regulation. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked an extraordinary question. He said, "What is this Advisory Committee before which these deported men have the right to appear?" If he had read the Order, he would have found that there is express provision in Regulation 14s that the person who is interned or deported has a right to go before an Advisory Committee and that the Advisory Committee for the purpose of these Regulations shall be such an Advisory Committee as is appointed for the purpose of advising the Secretary of State. He would have found out that the Home Secretary has power under this Order to appoint a special Committee for the purpose of advising him regarding people interned, and that what the Home Secretary proposes to do in the case of any of the persons concerned is to ask that their case shall be so investigated.

Captain O'GRADY: Might I ask whether this Regulation does not apply only to aliens?

Sir J. BUTCHER: No. This Regulation applies to people whether they are aliens or not. This Regulation has reference to the Advisory Committee, which is to say whether these persons interned under this Order are to be allowed out or not. The hon. and learned Member for Wallsend threw some serious doubts upon the Order, but he surely ought to know that this is a subject on which there have been several legal decisions, ending up in the House of Lords, which decided that the Order was absolutely valid.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does not the passing of the Free State Act, which gave self-government to the Irish Free State, bring about an entirely different legal position?

Sir J. BUTCHER: The answer is no. There is no doubt that this Order, according to the House: of Lords' decision, is valid. In the case which the hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley cited in which five judges were on one side and one on the other, they decided that the deportation or internment of a person living in this country and who was sent to Ireland is also valid. The question resolves itself into a very simple one. Here we have men about whom there was definite evidence that they were conspiring to destroy law and order in Ireland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No!

Sir J. BUTCHER: There was evidence before the Home Secretary—

Mr. BUCHANAN: There was no evidence.

Sir J. BUTCHER: —that they were conspiring for the destruction of property in England.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Sir J. BUTCHER: And no Member of this House can say that the Home Secretary had not a right to act as he did.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not agree.

Sir J. BUTCHER: The only question before the House is whether the action he took in the exercise of his discretion was wise, or whether there was some other action he might have taken. I do not know what other action he could have taken. The Irish Government have asked him to help them in the restoration of law and order in Ireland. There
was this Regulation in existence, made under an Act of Parliament, definitely for the purpose of restoring order in Ireland. That Regulation was intact. The Irish Government had that Regulation before them. The Home Secretary took every precaution to see that there was a aproper case before putting that Regulation into operation, and I for one certainly think he exercised a wise discretion.

Mr. HARNEY: I did not hear the beginning of this Debate, nor had I the benefit of hearing this Regulation read which is alleged to have decided the action taken by the Home Secretary. I am prepared, however, to admit that he acted on legal advice and that so far as the legality of his action is concerned he may be on safe ground. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) told us that in a similar case, before the Free State was established, there was a difference of opinion among the judges and even that that case went to the extreme limit of what was allowed by the law. It is a new factor in the matter that the Free State Government has since been established and, therefore, if some sort of action went over the extreme limit in the case referred to it must have gone, to say the least, very much nearer to it in this case.
But the point I rose to make—and I only do so because I am an Irishman—is this, I suppose statesmen have to consider, not what is always legally justifiable, but what is wise and circumspect. Apart from this particular Regulation, one knows that any subject living in a country that boasts of liberty is entitled to say his freedom can only be invaded by those methods recognised by the legal jurisdiction of that country, and in England we never allow a man's liberty to be invaded without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Indeed, even a foreigner in our country has his liberty guarded to some extent, and that is the basis of our extradition law. What has happened here? Certain men subjected to the English jurisdiction, but having, according to information sent from Ireland, sentiments which are disloyal to this country and to the Irish Free State, are suddenly arrested and deported. What will be the state of feeling in Ireland to-morrow? A large percentage of those who at
present are disposed to help and to forward purposes of law and order, which is the function of the Free State Government, will say, "Here is England once more sticking her finger in the pie and taking sides in our country," and I have little doubt, from my knowledge of my own countrymen, that this action will have the effect of immensely strengthening the irregular forces in Ireland.
How can it have been wise, upon mere statements of facts, not sworn to, in no way supported except by the written declaration of those who in Ireland arc opposed to the parties here arrested, for this Government, at a time when we should stand up and allow, if possible., the healing forces which have been set at work to complete their good offices, to take sides with one of the two parties in the internecine fight which is going on there? There is an internecine fight going on in Ireland, and undoubtedly there is a great deal of strength upon both sides, and the real division between the two is that those who are opposed to the Government in Ireland say: "You have been duped by England. They never intended to give you a real Free State." Now we have enabled them to say: "See, we were right. The English Government is still ready on the first invitation to come in and take sides with those who they think are more loyal or less disloyal to them." Though I am sure that the Home Secretary, in a difficult position, did the, best he could, and though I have no doubt he was well advised, I will support those who put forward this Motion, because I think that this was a singularly unwise and imprudent action to take.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I have been unwilling to intervene in a discussion of this sort, but the speech which we have just heard is one to which I cannot listen in silence. We have been forced over and over again, many of us strongly against our convictions and wishes, to give to the Free State in Ireland a free band and every advantage. We were pressed to do so against our inclinations and our convictions. We did not think that it would be good for Ireland, and the present state of Ireland shows that it is not good for Ireland. But the Government which is in power has inherited a legacy left by the last Government, and finds itself com-
pelled, even it may be against the convictions of many of its supporters in this House, to do all it can to support the Free State Government in the arduous work it has undertaken. It finds itself now opposed by some lawyers who can find some small niggling points against it, or by Members like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), for whom I can assure him, honestly, that I have great respect, who speak of the liberty of the subject. And we have also had the hon. Member for. West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), a supporter of the Government, as one who adds his voice to the general outcry against the Government for acting, as I think they are acting, in the spirit which prompted the Coalition Government to carry out this Treaty and support the Free State Government.
They do so honestly, beyond what many of us would have done, and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the very people who forced on this Treaty, who forced upon us the acknowledgment of the Free State, should now turn against the Government and say, "You have done wrong because at the urgent request of the Free State, which we created, and which you said would give great advantage, you have done what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) himself is compelled to say is a perfectly legal act." I accept the view of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) on the legal question, but I do take issue with men like the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) and the Leader of the Opposition, and I say, speaking on broad grounds of justice and upon the morality which the Government are compelled to follow by the damnosu hæreditas which the Government received from its predecessors, that they were, as honourable men, bound to do all they could to help the Free State, and it seems rather hard, when they have done what the Free State Government have asked them to do, as vital to their existence, to turn upon them and to say that they should not take this action when men in our midst were carrying out a plot to try to make life in Ireland impossible and to extend the disorder and anarchy which exist in Ireland into this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: Until this moment we have, not heard much about. our
action in supporting the Free State Government. The last speaker reminded us that some of us supported the establishment of the Irish Free State. Of course we did. I think it was our policy and agitation that brought into being the Free State in Ireland. I hold that the reason for the internecine strife that is going on in Ireland to-day is that certain very distinguished right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the other side have never rested until they divided that country into two camps. We are bound to say that in defence of the policy which we have supported. From my experience in this House I am convinced that to make a gamekeeper of a poacher is a very good policy indeed. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who ornament the Treasury Bench to-night, in the main are the people who in this country organised sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion against His Majesty's Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: That may be an argument in debate on another occasion, but it does not arise here.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would not have been drawn had it not been for the last speaker. I want to make it clear that in our judgment the condition of affairs in Ireland is entirely due to the policy put sued by the present Prime Minister when he sat on the Opposition Front Bench. Hon. Members on the Government side will not accept our word that we want, just as much as they want, to mantain the present Irish Free State Government, and that we are not quarreling with the British Government for taking action against people who break the law. Unhappily for me, I have been to prison twice for breaking the law. I have not minded it very much, because I thought it was right to go there. What I feel on this occasion is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have no right continually to put up against us a case for which there is no foundation. What we complain about is not that you are interfering with men who are conspiring to do something which they ought not to do, but about the method of your interference. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite do not realise that they are setting a very bad precedent for the future. If it is to be possible for the British Parliament to pass an emergency Act during a period of war between Ireland
and this country, and when the war is over still to put into operation that emergency Act, it is giving us very good levers for the future for dealing with people who may be troublesome to us.
I am perfectly certain when the hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition sits as Leader of the Government—as he wilt one day without any doubt—if, unhappily, a war took place and a Defence of the Realm Act was passed, and if a year or two after the war, the hon. Gentleman attempted to use that Act against any of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who now sit opposite, they would take up exactly the same attitude as that which we are taking up to-night. That is the whole case. Hon. Members on the other side have refused to face the issue which was put to them. The two judges determined in a very extreme case that a man should be dealt with, and that was when we were at war—or rather, when the Irish nation, at least Southern and Western Ireland, were at war with this country. No one on the other side of the House has ever met the point that has been put over and over again tonight, and the point is that these conditions having passed away, and an entirely new set of conditions having been created, you are trying to apply a law which should not be applied to the new conditions. Probably the Attorney-General will attempt to meet it.

Mr. FORD: The Free State Government requested it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am going to address myself to the Speaker, and not to the hon. Member. I hope that the learned Attorney-General will tell us—

Mr. FORD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member who is addressing the House has not given way.

Mr. FORD: On a point of Order. Was this not a request from the Free State Government?

Mr. LANSBURY: Even if it were a request by the Free State Government, I have yet to learn that the British Government has to concede every request that the Free State Government may make. I ask the learned Attorney-General, does he contend that any citizens may be deported from England to Ireland there to be tried for offences com-
witted in England against the English Government. That is what it comes to. I listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary reading those letters just now, and I was not very much impressed with them. Two of them, I think, dealt with a conspiracy to do certain things in England. They were not very definite, but they seemed to carry a sort of conviction that certain people were organised to commit offences here, not against the Irish Free State, but offences against our own Government and property in this country. What I want to know is, if I commit an offence against the law of the land and enter into an illegal conspiracy against the British Government, can I be sent to Ireland to be interned?

Sir F. BANBURY: Hear, hear. [Laughter.]

Mr. LANSBURY: I am glad to hear hon. Members laugh. I hope I will live to see the day when the hon. Gentlemen who are sitting over there will be sitting on this side of the House, and I shall see how they will laugh then. At the moment I am dealing with a serious matter, and I ask the Attorney-General if it is contended that under an emergency law, you can take English citizens out of this country to be tried, not for offences against the Irish Free State, but for offences against our own Government? In that connection I wish to say that it is perfectly true that the Free State is part of the British Dominions, but it is equally true that within the confines of that part of Ireland over which it has jurisdiction, the Free State Government exercises power without any interference whatever from this House. Therefore, it is no use you rebuking us because we say it is an alien Government. We mean a Government that is not under the control of this House of Commons. Nobody has answered the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) yet on that point. I have had experience, and I hope the House will forgive me for what I am going to say. I say it with quite definite feeling of the truth of what I am going to say in reference to the appointment of Mr. Justice Lawrence, as he was, now Lord Trevethin. I want this House to realise that this gentleman is 80 years of age. Two years ago I was before him, and I say it is monstrous to put him to try
anybody at his age. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] This man is going to be Chairman of the Advisory Committee. It is bad enough in this House to give out opinions of which one side or the other does not approve, but when you get before a learned judge, and you are on trial for your liberty, you ought to be able to put your case and to be heard in an intelligent fashion. I say that when this gentleman was Lord Chief Justice, and I was before him—

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to transgress the well-known rule of this House, that it is not open to any hon. Member to criticize any of his Majesty's Judges, except on a direct Motion to that effect.

Mr. LANSBURY: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker lie is not now a judge. He has retired.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was referring to some action when he was a judge. He is entitled to give his opinions on the Chairman of this Advisory Committee, but he must not go into that gentleman's actions when he was holding a commission as one of His Majesty's judges.

Mr. LANSBURY: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to contest your ruling. I only want to say, and I put it to any common-sense Member of this House, is it a fair and a just thing to put a man who has retired from his position, who is 80 years age, to be the head of a Committee over such a very difficult question as will be involved in the treatment of these men? At least, I, for one, protest very strongly, from my knowledge of the gentleman, against his being appointed to any such position.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Attorney-General tell us, in his reply, exactly the extent of the problem we are discusing, how many persons are involved, from what localities they are drawn, and if his Department or the Home Office took steps through the ordinary police force to keep a surveillance over the activities of these men before they took this rather melodramatic step?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech of the tone of which none of us, I think, would complain, propounded what he
said was the question which the Opposition desired to raise. The question, as he stated it, was this: What power had the Home Secretary to do what he has done, under what Statutes or Regulations was he acting That, as I apprehend it, is a question of law, and nothing else. I was proposing, as a Law Officer, to answer that question, but I am going to do it quite shortly now, because someone who is certainly, if I may say so, even better qualified to answer it, the right hon. Gentleman who combines the functions of an ex-Law Officer and an ex-Home Secretary (Sir S. Simon), has now answered it for me. The Act of Parliament under which the Home Secretary has acted is an Act to make provision for the restoration and maintenance of law and order in Ireland. It was passed on 9th August, 1920, and it provided for the making and issuing of Regulations for securing the restoration and maintenance of law and order in Ireland.

Mr. MacDONALD: Are we now responsible for law and order in Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I take it, Sir, that His Majesty's Government is responsible for assisting any Dominion Government to maintain law and order. The Regulations under which the Home Secretary has acted was the other question put to me. The Regulation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself read, Regulation 14B, was made on 13th August, 1920, under the powers contained in the Act I have quoted. That Regulation, as the House will remember, provides—I am only reading the relevant words—
Where on the recommendation of a competent military authority it appears to the Secretary of State that for securing the restoration or maintenance of order in Ireland it is expedient that the person who is suspected of acting, or having acted, or being about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland an II be subjected to such obligations and restrictions as are hereinafter mentioned, the Secretary of State may, by Order, order that person to be interned in suet place as may be specified in the Order. …
and the Regulation goes on to provide a little lower down that the place may he any place in the British Isles.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who invented that Regulation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Act was passed by the Houses of Parliament, and assented to by His Majesty's Government, and they are, therefore, the responsible authorities for the Act. The Regulations have, in accordance with their express terms, to be laid before Parliament before they become operative. That was done in August, 1920, and they became operative some time later.
I have answered, therefore, the question which the hon. Gentleman stated as the question he desired to raise. It is, however, worth remembering, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley reminded us, that the efficacy of the Regulation made under that Act of Parliament to permit the internment in Southern Ireland of somebody arrested in England was subject to a judicial decision by our own Court of Appeal. As is well known, in July, 1921, the Court of Appeal decided that it was legal under that power to intern in Southern Ireland somebody arrested over here.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. I do not want to interrupt the right: hon. and learned Gentleman, but is not that subject to the offence being committed in Ireland?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether that is a point of Order, but the answer is "No." That, therefore, is the legal authority for the action which has been taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley propounded a different question as one which he thought ought to be considered. He said that this Regulation was legal, and that therefore the act of the Home Secretary was within the law, although he read an article from a newspaper to say that the anonymous author of that article did not agree with him. The question which he propounded was. "Is it a wise act of policy that we should have internment as a means for the suppression of crime?" That is a question of policy and not a question of law, and I propose, with the permission of the House, to say a few words about it and the arguments addressed during the Debate with regard to it.
It is said that from the point of view of policy the fact that the Treaty with Ireland was made and that the Irish Free
State has been established makes all the difference, and that it is no longer politic to do what it may still be legal to effect. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in support of that view, that when the Act was passed and the Regulations were made Ireland was in a state of rebellion against us; that we had Ireland rebelling against us and we passed this Regulation to assist us in putting down rebellion and re-storing order; and that is no longer true now because part of Ireland is in rebellion against the Irish Free State. I admit the fact, but I completely traverse the conclusion, because when once we find that the self-governing authority in a Dominion comes to this country and says that it desires this country, in order to assist it in maintaining order in its own Dominion, to put into force certain powers, there is no reason why the responsible authority should decline to give that assistance. I would go further, and say that if it did decline it would be undertaking a very grave responsibility.
It is true that a number of hon. Members opposite have told us that the Irish Free State will suffer for this, and that it is bad in their interest to do it. That seems to be the characteristic way in which the Labour party seek to enforce self-government.

Mr. MAXTON: That interpretation came from the Communist party and not the La-hour party.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I know that that argument was put forward by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) and was reinforced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) both of whom said that this is a very bad thing for the Irish Free State and will cause Irish opinion to turn against the Government there. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, when we have given self-government to any country, we, intend that the self-governing Power shall decide these things, and it is not for us to dictate to the Free State Government what is best for them. It is for them to tell us and we act upon it. The Irish Free State Government has told us in this ease that in their opinion it was most desirable and indeed essential that we should take the action that we have taken.
Assume that you have the request made, as it was made here. The Home Secretary has had these cases under consideration for no less than four weeks. He has gone carefully into each individual case. He has had a recommendation from the competent military authority. He has satisfied himself that it is right to exercise the power with which Parliament has entrusted him, and what is he then to do when the time comes, excepting to act? I submit that he would be guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty if he failed to exercise his power.
It is said—and one appreciates the subtlety, at least, of the argument—" Oh, well, a man always ought to have a fair trial, a man ought not to be arrested where he cannot be tried." In time of peace, that is perfectly true, and nobody suggests that the normal state of affairs in any British Dominion, under conditions of peace, is other than that which has been suggested. But the very essence of these Regulations is that there is not a normal condition of affairs existing in the particular part of the British Dominions with regard to which these Regulations were enacted, that is to say, Ireland. It was only, as right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, with regard to England during the time of War that an exactly similar power was enacted, and upheld. Now, in Ireland, can anybody dispute that the condition of affairs to-day is at least as dangerous to the existence of the Government of that country as any state of affairs which existed during the worst. days of the War here? Why should riot the Irish Free State have the same powers and the same protection that we were only too anxious to claim for ourselves when we were fighting for our existence?
The hon. and learned Member for Wallsend (Mr. Hastings), in a speech which—he will forgive me for saying—I somewhat resented, began by saying that on this occasion he was satisfied—in fact, he kept on saying he was satisfied—that the Law Officers of the Crown, must both feel that this was one of the most terrible things that had been done in the history of their time; and when he saw some sign of dissent, he said, at least they would do so in their private capacity. I want to say, here and now, speaking not only for myself but for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, that we resent the suggestion that we would come
down to the House of Commons and make a statement in this House which did not agree with our real opinion, and that, for the sake of some party advantage, we would attempt to mislead the House of Commons as to what we believe on a matter of this kind. As the Home Secretary told the House, before he took this action he did me the honour to consult me upon the action he was going to take. It met with my entire and unqualified approval. I approved it for the reasons which I am venturing to put before the House now, which are—whether they be right or whether they be wrong—at least, as I hope all my statements in the House will be, my deliberate, sincere, and honest conviction. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Wallsend will apply to himself, at any rate, the principle which I have tried to adopt, of saying to the House what he really thinks, and not what he thinks it would pay him to think. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "Withdraw!"]

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. I would like to ask your ruling, Sir, as to whether it is in order for any hon. Member of this House to impute dishonesty of expression to another hon. Member.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members know that we always assume honesty of purpose and if a suggestion were made other than that, certainly I should intervene.

Mr. HASTINGS: Only one word. I should be deeply regretful if a very old friend of mine thought I had in the slightest degree impugned his motives. The only point I endeavoured to make was this, that inasmuch as the Attorney-General had, as I understood, given an opinion in law, I thought he would regret

the necessity for having given it, as a matter of fact. I am sure I said nothing to impugn his honesty of motive and purpose.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Of course, I accept that at once.

Mr. MAXTON: What about your suggestion?

Mr. SHINWELL: What does it matter whether he withdraws it or not?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have endeavoured in the time that remained to me first of all to point out why in law this action was justified and, secondly, I have tried to point out why from the point of policy it was wise. I should only like to say in conclusion that we have had a number of letters which show a very serious state of affairs; we have obtained as a result of the raid on Sunday morning another document and I will read this. It is to the Officer Commanding in Britain from the chief of the Staff in Ireland as follows:
Having failed to get the articles we expected, the Chief of the Staff writes that you be instructed to have operations carried out at once. He says that days now count.
When one remembers the operations that were suggested in a previous letter it is possible to realise how serious a matter that is.

Mr. J. JONES: rose in leis place,and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is now ready to come to a decision.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 260.

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Snell, Harry


Hayday, Arthur
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Snowden, Philip


Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Maxton, James
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Millar, J. D.
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Herriotts, J.
Murnin, H.
Sullivan, J.


Hillary, A. E.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hinds, John
Newbold, J. T. W.
Thorne, G. R, (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hirst, G. H.
Nichol, Robert
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
O'Grady, Captain James
Thornton, M.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Paling, W.
Tillett, Benjamin


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Phillipps, Vivian
Turner, Ben


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh. Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Potts, John S.
Warne, G. H.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richards, R.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.
Webb, Sidney


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Weir, L. M.


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Welsh, J. C.


Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Wheatley, J.


Lansbury, George
Royce, William Stapleton
Whiteley, W.


Lawson, John James
Saklatvala, S.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. A.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Lee, F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Sexton, James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Linfield, F. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wintringham, Margaret


Lowth, T.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Lunn, William
Shinwell, Emanuel
Wright, W.


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon, Charles A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John



M'Entee, V. L.
Simpson, J. Hope
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. J. Jones and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adams, D.
Cairns, John
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bodwellty)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Chapple, W. A.
Fairbairn, R. R.


Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent
Charleton, H. C.
Falconer, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Foot, Isaac


Attlee, C. R.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gosling, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Barnes, A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Batey, Joseph
Darbishire, C. W.
Gray, Frank (Oxford)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greenall, T.


Bonwick, A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duffy, T. Gavan
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Buchanan, G.
Duncan, C.
Harbord, Arthur


Buckle, J.
Dunnico, H.
Hardie, George D.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Ede, James Chuter
Harney, E. A.


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Edge, Captain Sir William
Harris, Percy A.


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Edmonds, G.
Hastings, Patrick


Lamb, J. Q.
Pease, William Edwin
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sparkes, H. W.


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord


Lorimer, H. D.
Peto, Basil E.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Philipson, H. H.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Lumley. L. R.
Pielou. D. P.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Preston, Sir W. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Privett, F. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Manville, Edward
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Sutcliffe, T.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Remer, J. R.
Terrell, Csptain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rentoul, G. S.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Tubbs, S. W.


Molson, Major John Eisdale
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford Hereford)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Wallace, Captain E.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston upon-Hull)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Waring, Major Walter


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Rothschild, Lionel do
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Morris, Harold
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Watts, Dr T. (Man., Withington)


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Russell, William (Bolton)
White, Lt. Col. G. D. (Southport)


Murchison, C. K.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Whitla, Sir William


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Nail, Major Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Earl


Nesbitt, Robert C.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wise, Frederick


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wolmer, Viscount


Newton, Sir Percy Wilson
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nicholson, William G (Petersfleld)
Shipwright, Captain D.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Nleld, Sir Herbert
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Simpson-Hinchliffe, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Paget, T. G.
Singleton, J. E.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Skelton, A. N.
Gibbs.


Question put, and agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Warrington Corporation Water Bill (By Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That 99,500 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 1,423 for the Coast Guard and Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

Question again proposed.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I do not want to enter into a general discussion on the relations of the Admiralty and the Air Service, but to ask a question. In the Vote you have just put
to the House I understand there arc some 140 officers and 1,000 men who are being held in reserve for the purpose of the Air Service. I should like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will assure us that he will be here on Wednesday when the question is raised and answer for his Department., because on Wednesday we shall only have a Secretary of State for Air, who is not a person reponsible for Admiralty policy, and it would not be satisfactory for us to say what we have to say to the Secretary of State for Air. We want a Minister who is responsible for the policy with which we disagree. If the First Lord of the Admiralty would give that assurance it would shorten the debate to-night.

Viscount CURZON: Before that question is answered, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will exercise his good offices with Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees to see that the same facilities are given for discussion on the Report stages of the Air Estimates as have been given on the Report stages of the Votes for the Navy?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: We have listened to what I would call a very
forcible speech from the hon. Member for Collie Valley (Mr. Snowden). Those of us who were in the House with him before the war will not fail to recognise in that speech the same spirit which prevailed in the speeches which he delivered in the debates from 1910 onwards, and I think the Leader of the Opposition as he listened to that speech must have had many old memories revived, seeing that he was always in the van when there was any proposal in the direction of cutting down Naval Estimates. Had the views expressed by the hon. Member for Collie Valley and the Leader of the Opposition been put into force before the War the position to-day would be very different from what it is. The hon. Member for Colne Valley seemed to think that the only use for a Navy was to meet a menace. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech, exposed the futility of that supposition. But suppose we were to do away with the Navy, would that have any effect upon the United States, upon Japan, upon Italy, upon France? Would they follow suit? Would they have no Navy? Even the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) told us that if his party—I do not know what the strength of that party is—[An HON. MEMBER: "One!"]— if that party came into power, he would have what he called a red Navy Well, I have heard of the blue-water school, but I never heard of a red-water school or a red Navy. Then we had the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees Smith), a very appropriate seconder, if he will allow me to say so. He appealed to the House as if he were something of an innocent, and as if he were making a maiden speech on Navy Estimates. I have not such a short memory as the hon. Member for Keighley. I can remember the hon. Gentleman not perhaps joining in with the alacrity he did to-day and not perhaps dealing with the economic side of the question, but always saying he thought the time bad arrived when we ought to cut down the Navy Estimates, and every year he went into the Lobby and voted against the Naval Estimates. So it is absurd to suppose he is an innocent abroad, because he is nothing of the sort. He is now what he always was—an opponent of the Navy and anything to do with the Navy. Then we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). Having been
once a Civil Lord one would suppose he had some traditions to keep up. He told us what he would do. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nothing"] I would not be so rude as that, though it may perhaps be true. He told us he did not care whether Britain had a fourth or a fifth rate navy. He did not want a one-power standard. That was nothing to him. He said the German fleet was at the bottom of the sea. We all know it is, but we do not need to be told so by him every year since the Armistice.
Then he told us he had sympathy with the retired and discharged officers and men. Sympathy forsooth! Yet he said he objected altogether to the statement of the First Lord that there would be no further reductions in the Navy. The Navy do not want sympathy of that kind. But we are always pleased to know the Liberal view. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite to get out a. leaflet explaining to Liberals at the next General Election what the views of the Liberal Party are as expressed by the hon. Member for South Molton, late Civil Lord. [Interruption.] I am glad to see hon. Members opposite in such numbers. It is the only time I have seen so many on the Labour benches during a naval Debate. It shows the interest they are taking in the matter. I had the pleasure of knowing the brother of the hon. Member who continually interrupts, and he never interrupted.

Mr. HARDIE: I am here to pay back what you did to him.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking that it will be a very long time before this sitting is ended if we go on at the present rate.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I should like to say a few words about the First Lord's speech. It was a somewhat apologetic speech. It was a very well reasoned speech, but it was apologetic. It was apologetic on the question of ratification lie told us two Great Powers had ratified the Washington Treaty. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was not aware of that, so it was news to him. Perhaps the First Lord will tell us when he expects the other Powers to ratify it. He admits the scrapping of capital ships required of us by the Treaty, but says frankly no other Power has done the same. He tells us this is a
great relief to the taxpayer. Of course it is. Some taxpayers no doubt will be very much obliged to him, but at the same time it involves risks. It involves risks which an island State such as ours, dependent on imported supplies and food, cannot afford to take. The First Lord, in the excellent statement which he has issued with the Naval Estimates, says that he has done this as an "act of faith." Previous First Lords have told us over and over again that it was a matter of "life and death" .that the British Navy should be supreme. The Washington Conference reduced the Navy to a one-power standard, but until that agreement is carried out it is not even a one-power standard. While faith is a very good precept, if before the war we had relied on precepts such as these as regards the Navy the position of this country to-day would have been very different from what it is. Suppose the other Powers do not ratify the agreement, we cannot get back the ships which we have scrapped or the officers and men whom we retired or discharged. We cannot build a new navy.

Mr. HARDIE: We can if we like.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The Admiralty in this respect acted too quickly. Instead of acting on the assumption that the Treaty would be ratifed, we should have waited until ratification had taken place. What we are now doing is risking our security, and while I yield to no one in my desire for economy I am not prepared to take the risk. [Interruption.] If hon. Members would only cease interrupting—

Mr. SHINWELL: Apply that to your own side.

The CHAIRMAN: I may remind hon. Members that if they do not care to listen to the speeches, there are other parts of the House to which they can go. The Minister in charge and myself are the only persons who are compelled to listen.

Mr. SHINWELL: Play the game yourselves.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow not to interrupt.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In reference to stores, I am very sorry to see the First Lord continue his policy in the same direction. The First Lord tells us that
it is justified only by the financial situation and the passive atmosphere in the sphere of naval armaments. But in the matter of stores, especially oil fuel and fuel abroad, it is necessary to have a constant supply. It is not much good spending a large amount of money on ships if we cannot steam them under their own fuel. For myself I do not see the placid atmosphere. I read the other day—the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) will correct me if I am wrong— that Russia was spending some of her ill-gotten gains on building a navy. "We ought to have fuel stations where the ships which we have built could he supplied with oil fuel." On page 4 of the statement the First .Lord says: "We do not propose to lay down any new ships in 1923–1924.' If hon. Members turn to page 12, they will see that the First Lord says that during the year progress will be made with new construction and reconstruction. Surely the two statements conflict. No doubt the First Lord will give us some explanation? Will he tell us what new construction he refers to on page 12? Are we to have no new cruisers laid down? We had four cruisers laid down between 1916 and 1918; only one of them has been nearly finished, the "Frobisher." In view of the loss of the "Raleigh" two at least of those cruisers should by now have passed into the Service. But that is not to be. And we are to have no new cruisers. That is a mistake. I would suggest that if possible the First Lord should reconsider his decision.
I was glad to see that there are to be no further discharges in the dockyards. I hope that the First Lord will emphasise that to the greatest possible extent, because it is essential that men now engaged in the dockyards should be certain that they will not be discharged. But what about the apprentices and ex-apprentices who have been discharged? Is there no hope of bringing them back and making some provision for them? The apprentices of the Navy, Army and Air Force are invariably retained. Is it not possible, even now, to make it a sine qua non that apprentices and ex-apprentices of the Royal Yards shall be established? Nothing is said in the memorandum about dockyard wages. May I take it that there will be no further reductions? I should be glad to have a statement on that point, and also to know
whether the Admiralty letter sent me the other day with regard to Devonport Ropery is correct, and whether it will be maintained, or whether there is any prospect of it being transferred to Chatham.
I must say a word about unestablished writers. The decision that those employed in the Royal Dockyards and Naval Establishments and who entered after August are required to pass a qualifying examination before they are placed on the Establishment, and that if they do not pass they will be discharged, is causing much dissatisfaction amongst the boy writers and ex-boy writers. These boys were not allowed to compete in the examinations held for absorbing the temporary staffs, although the temporary staffs had no Civil Service examination to pass. The majority of them have between six and eight years' service. I ask the First Lord whether he can give some explanation why this difference should be observed. Then there is the question of the Admiralty established Civil servants. They claim—there are 15,000 of them—to be paid for leave. They have four public holidays in the year, but no other holiday, and if they take leave for sickness, or because they want a change for a day or two, they have to lose their pay from the State. I do not think that is quite fair. This practice is not observed with other grades of permanent. Civil servants nor by private employers. Another point with regard to the Admiralty established Civil Service is the claim to have no real deduction made from the substantive rate of pay for superannuation purposes. Hon. Members may not be aware of the fact, but Civil servants in other branches, when they get what is called "an appointment," have an addition made to their stipends or salaries and do not have to pay for superannuation.
We are told by the First Lord that the naval reductions have come to an end or nearly so. In this connection I wish to press forward the case of those men who have been compulsorily retired lately. Many of them are young and many of them have had a certain amount of money spent upon them by their parents and by the State. Now they are sent out with only one month's notice. I do not regard that as quite fair, because they were
asked to come into the Navy, and they were told they would have continuous employment and would be able to put in time for a pension. By being sent out at one month's notice, all that is done away with, and some proper compensation should be made to them. The compensation at present is £20 or £25. Is that sufficient? I do not think it is, when you consider that £1,000 in addition to retired pay is given to officers of similar age and length of service. I entreat the First Lord of the Admiralty to see if he cannot do something in the direction of awarding higher compensation, in view of the fact that it is absolutely impossible for these men to get employment in the towns where they are now located. The First Lord told us he was quite unable to spread these discharges over the entire Navy. He said the time was not sufficient, and therefore he had been obliged to confine the compulsory discharges to the home service. I think, with a little more consideration and a little more calculation, it would have been possible to take in the whole Navy instead of making all these discharges in the home service. An hon. Member has spoken at length about "Showing the Flag." Showing the Flag is very important for the British Navy. It served us exceedingly well at Brazil, as we heard this afternoon, and it has done the same in the past. It has shown what the British Navy is—what the power of the British Navy is, what its personnel is, and what its ships are like. That is an important matter when one considers that ours is an island State, thousands of miles from our British Possessions overseas.
We have also been informed by the First Lord that particular ships were sent to the Dardanelles and that they were very useful in serving the purpose for which they were sent there. Let me tell the House, that. in order to send those ships to the Dandanelles properly manned, we had to take almost every man and boy from the Naval Schools, and in the Royal Marine Barracks hardly;I man was left. That was the result of cutting down the personnel of the Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very much obliged to hon. Members opposite for applauding me—it is not often I get applause from them. May I now refer to the question of the pensions of officers' widows. The ordinary pen-
sions of widows of officers from warrant rank up to 13th August, 1920, were £25 for the widow of a warrant officer, £30 for the widow of a commissioned officer from warrant rank, and £50 for the widow of a lieutenant. Since that date, the pensions of widows of officers have been reconsidered, and a great deal of amendment has been made in those of widows of officers who come within the categories of Commander to Admiral of the Fleet, but, so far as that class to which I have referred is concerned, nothing has been done. In the Admiralty Regulations today there is a note to the effect that these pensions of widows are still under consideration. They have been under consideration for two years; surely it is time to come to some conclusion.
Then there is the important matter of ventilation. Only the other day when the question was raised in this House we were told that a Committee was inquiring into the matter. I have received a letter to-day from a man who sailed in the "Vindictus," which went to Hong Kong, and what happened there? Not only was the ventilation very bad, but all the arrangements were very bad. The ship was overcrowded, the messes of the lower deck Pere particularly overcrowded, and the galley arrangements were indifferent. The galley was designed to provide food for only 750, and there were on hoard 1,300 men, and the ship was not even fitted with a refrigerator, notwithstanding the fact that she was going to the tropics. I hope the First Lord will see his way to place these facts before the Committee, in order that this sort of thing may not happen a second time.
In conclusion, let me say a word about a subject that is very near to my heart, and that is the question of an Imperial Navy. The Prime Minister told me, and at the same time the House, in answer to a question the other day, that the effect of the Resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in August, 1921, was to defer detailed recommendations till after the Washington Conference, and that discussions were proceeding, but had not arrived at a stage when a statement could be made. The First Lord of the Admiralty has not given us to-day any indication as to what it is intended to do to carry out that Resolution, and I should like to know what is the position. And I should like to ask, Does the Washington Agreement im-
pose conditions on shipbuilding in the Dominions?

Mr. AMERY: indicated assent.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In that case, then, the Dominions are dependent on the Royal Navy, and if they are dependent on the Royal Navy, and cannot build local Navies, the matter is of greater urgency, some arrangements should he made by which the Dominions could send contributions, either in money or in kind, to help us keep up a Navy which assists them as well as us. If we have arrived at the point where there is to be a one-Power standard for the entire Empire, each part of the Empire should shoulder its burden. What we want is not a United Kingdom Navy, not an Australian Navy, not a Canadian or a South African Navy, but an Imperial Navy, and I use the word "Imperial" in its broadest sense—that of Empire. That is what is wanted, and that is what I beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to see if he cannot bring about by calling together at once an Imperial Naval Conference, and seeing if the matter cannot be brought to a head.

Mr. R. MURRAY: We have been discussing Vote A, and I had some trepidation as to what particular Vote one would be permitted to discuss, but following the example—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be in order in discussing anything that seems to have a bearing on this Vote.

Mr. MURRAY: I was about to follow the example of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who has sailed on every sea. We have discussed every section of shipping from a cockle-shell to a post Jutland warship. I felt I would be equally safe in taking any part of the navy or naval questions for discussion. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me spoke at the beginning of his remarks as to the position taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The Leader of the Opposition!

Mr. MURRAY: —who tried to harrow our souls by suggesting that if the policy recommended by the hon. Members on our side in the pre-war era had been carried out that this country would have been in a terrible condition, would have endured
unutterable things, and would have had to spend enormous sums of money. But the policies we have had, and the ideas that have been carried into effect, are those which emanated from the other side of the House, and we have paid an enormous price for it in men, in ruined homes, lost trade and conditions of uncertainty and unrest so great that it is impossible to conceive any other policy that could have brought us anything worse than that policy. Some of us believe that if the idea of steady disarmament of the world advocated by the hon. Gentlemen named had been accepted by the nations of the world in the pre-war years that we would not have endured what we did in the years 1914–1918. But some say, that if we had carried out the policy of reducing the navy other nations would not have followed our example. Britain would have been defeated and would have had to suffer the results of it. We maintained a great navy and went to War, and as a consequence we have to-day a million and a quarter of our people walking the streets unemployed, and suffering all sorts of evils, lacking the necessaries of life, and the children being starved.
The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Vote reminded us of the naval expenditure of the world. He said we must consider in this matter interna-national suspicions that are apt to be engendered. It is because we have recognised and seen the result of the War, and the continuance of a great navy, and the excitement thereto to other nations to adept the same policy; it is because we recognise all these and the present tendencies to misunderstandings amongst the nations of the world, that we urge this country to take steps to secure an international conference that may so far as possible make an effort towards putting an end to the evil conditions which so far have prevailed. We were also reminded that. in 1912 or 1913, and just before the War, that Admiral Jellicoe had made a tour of the world and made a report which showed that in his opinion, that by the year 1924 it was essential that we should build up an enormous navy in relation not merely to the navy of to-day, but in relation to the navy of 1912 and 1913. What stronger proof than that could you adduce of the fact that the maintenance
of a powerful navy can only lead to the building up of still greater navies by other countries because you create competition amongst the other nations of the world. What stronger argument could we have on this point than the statement in which we were warned by Admiral Jellicoe that it would be essential that by 1924 our Navy should be swollen to gigantic proportions. The hon. Gentleman told us that we had now escaped that burden because of the War which we have passed through, and we have paid an enormous price for escaping the burden of that Navy in war expenditure and having some 3,500,000 persona killed and maimed. Now we are being asked to revert to the policy which ended before in that result, and which is likely to end in the same way again.
Instead of the policy which has gone on unchecked from generation to generation, resulting in war after war and high costs and higher costs, with social dorms stunted and starved in order that the purposes of war may be fed full, we ask that an effort should be made to change the whole policy, and instead of spending our money upon war that we should seek to create by an international conference the spirit of peace, and that by the scrapping of navies we should try to promote and ensure the peace of the world. It is now proposed to build two post-Jutland vessels of 35,000 tons, and we are assured that when they are launched they will carry forward the lessons learned by the Battle of Jutland. It is hardly necessary for me to suggest even the futility of the purpose behind the creation of such a Navy. You have experimented for years and spent. millions of money in discovering new explosive forces and powers, and yet after the experience of a small number of hours under conditions which rendered it impossible to find out what other Powers were doing in consequence of the lessons of the Jutland Battle, you are now proposing to build vessels different from the ones which you formerly built. The Admiralty appear to think that the lessons to be drawn from that battle belong exclusively to this country instead of remembering that all these matters are studied carefully and spied upon and money is spent upon them far in excess of their value by other nations in the world. After that we have to spend
millions finding out the silly arrangements which other countries are making, and then at great expense we have to make prevision for meeting them. Whatever lessons may have come from the Jutland Battle have not come to us alone, but to other nations as well, and they will also build something new to meet the danger. The armament rings will take care that suspicions are engendered amongst other nations by the belief that we are building up a more efficient Navy, and thus they will be stimulated to build more vessels, and so this kind of thing will go on indefinitely, always going round and round and coming back to the same point instead of seeking some new method along more humane lines, instead of silly and foolish lines of that kind.
One argument which has been flung at us across the floor of the House to-day is contained in that high-sounding phrase, "freedom of the seas." What is the freedom of the seas to those nations whose industry, trade and commerce are vastly and quickly increasing without any great, navy to protect them? What about the, cry of the freedom of the seas in the ease of Denmark and Holland? They enjoy the freedom of the seas without spending all these enormous sums on navies. What prevents the sea being free to all nations is the existence and the maintenance of these great navies. The chief sinner in the past in setting the pace so far as navies are concerned has undoubtedly been Britain—

Viscount CURZON: Rubbish!

Mr. MURRAY: I think we ought to take up the truer policy of scrapping navies and armaments, and go forward as a democratic Government with peace as our objective and not war. As for the argument about the freedom of the seas why do countries like Holland and Denmark feel safe without large navies? The answer given to this question is that ours is a rich country and it would be worth while invading us. I think that argument is so much nonsense, because the, amount of wealth in any country that could be carried away by a successful invader would be hardly worth talking about. The wealth of a country is the people of the country, the machines which are in the country the natural wealth—the coal, iron and other commodities—there. It is not the things that are
packed in shops and warehouses, however good and rich they may lie. The taking away of our Navy, and the securing of a similar action so far as the nations of the world are concerned, would give us freedom of the seas, and would not subject this nation to the danger of invasion.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member who preceded me that if the Navy and naval expenditure are to be continued, at all events, the Royal dockyards and Royal equipment. should be employed rather than that encouragement should be given to the private enterprise which has created nine-tenths of the wars in the past and will probably create all the wars of the future. If there is necessity for any expenditure at all, it should be taken out of the hands of private interests, and stiffly and sternly maintained in the hands of the Government, through its own machinery and through the powers it possesses in that way. It has been said —if not in actual words, at least by inference—" What are we to do with our sons, if you scrap the Navy? It is essential, not merely that we should maintain the Navy for the sake of some great show, but for going round the world and showing the Flag." When people speak like that, it makes me wonder if T am in an elementary school, with a lot of little children, at the beginning of life where I am to be amused by circuses, or things of that kind: or if T have really wandered into a lunatic asylum and if the keeper is, for a. time, out.

Viscount CURZON: Have you ever been abroad?

Mr. MURRAY: While we spend all these millions in sending the British Flag round the seas of the world, our people are starving at home. You will find in the newspapers to-day a report of an address by Professor Noel Paton, the great medical authority in Glasgow, who, after an exhaustive inquiry into the condition of things in Glasgow and into the condition of the labouring class, gives it as his conclusion that the great majority of the working classes in Glasgow are to-day living below the poverty line.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is rather going beyond the Question before the Committee.

Mr. MURRAY: My point is that we are spending money on this silly circus
performance of sending the Navy round the world, instead of spending it in feeding our people in Glasgow. We ought to make a start somewhere toward a new policy, instead of continuing this policy that has been so evil and has had such dire results. When the right hon. Gentleman, who introduced the Navy Estimates to-day, was speaking, I had one thought with regard to his speech, and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me had another. Those two thoughts were wonderfully like one another, however. He called the speech of the right hon. Gentleman an apologetic speech. What I felt about it was that it was a sort of funeral oration. It was delivered as if it were some funereal rite, and every moment I expected to hear the words, "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust." Unfortunately what emerged from it at the end was simply that it was to be "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" for the future sons of the country in future. fights.
12 M.
If we are really to act upon lines of wisdom we should go back to the point at which the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Philip Snowden), and those other speakers of ten, twelve, and fourteen years ago, advised this country to cease the evil conditions which led up to
We eight, and we won't wait,
and other cries of that kind. Instead of that, we should try to lead the world into lines of peace, in the hope that, by saving expenditure of this kind, we shall be able to end war and to make it possible for newer, better and happier conditions to be. We are here to-day, at the end of twenty centuries of Christianity, and of the call to lay down the sword, and the best hon. Members on the other side—some of whom make great professions about spirituality and the understanding of the spirit of Christ and the spirit of religion —the best they can do for us is to tell us that we should spend the resources of this country and of the world in creating dire and yet more dire instruments of destruction, that we should contemplate the possibility of training millions of young boys into growing manhood, and through that into full manhood, and then devote them to purposes of destruction, telling them that the only way to do good
to the world and maintain the peace of the world is to create war and more destruction and death in the world. I hope the time is not far distant when another type of mind will fill the opposite bench and another type of ideal will move the Government of this country—that we shall for the first time in our history begin definitely to build that kingdom of peace, that kingdom of God, for which we have so long prayed. and towards which, so far, not a single governing body in this country has made one step or movement—when we shall not have silly stories such as we have had, but shall begin to have commonsense, idealism, truth, justice, and a desire for the betterment of the world instead of the destruction of future generations.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: As I listened to the last speaker, it seemed to me that he might be giving us the funeral rites of this country, if his policy were ever adopted. As a new Member, hearing what is said by hon. Members opposite, one wonders whether they realise that they live in this world or in a world of their own imagination. If one takes the whole history of what has happened during the last few years, it is not this country which has forced the pace in naval construction. It is this country that has every time taken the lead in endeavouring to reduce naval armaments. As hon. Members will recollect, Mr. Churchill in, I think, 1913, proposed the "naval holiday." More than one Member of our Government went over to Germany and endeavoured to get the German Government to consider that policy, but the German Government would not agree to it, and it was due to that, and that alone, that we were unable to reduce our armaments before the War. Since then, it was the British Government at the Washington Conference which desired to go further than any other Power. It was the British Government which desired to do away with the submarine altogether. It was France that would not agree. The British Government wanted to reduce or to regulate expenditure on aircraft carriers; it was France that would not agree.
What is a Government of this country to do? It is responsible to the whole of the people of this country for their safety. France is our nearest Power, and it is France always, lately, that has refused to
reduce armaments. Are we, therefore, not to take any notice of that spirit? Hon. Members opposite have only been too ready, when it was a matter of attacking the Government, to state that the military spirit in France was doing great damage to the safety and peace of Europe; but that same argument might be applied to keep our own Navy at such a strength that we can fulfil our functions. I do not, however, wish to stress that point. I rose to ask the First Lord a few questions with regard to staff work, education and research work. It was only too evident from the First Lord's statement that we have not at the present time a one-Power standard. I do not know that anyone would disagree with that position, seeing that it is unlikely that there will be a war, and that our nearest competitors are America and Japan. At the same time we are enabled by adopting that position to give a lead to disarmament, but in adopting that course, which must be a course dangerous in seine degree, it is very necessary that we should concentrate upon those matters which will increase the efficiency of the service, and at the same time will not cost very much money. With regard to staff work, it was stated in the House to-day that the naval staff only consisted of 60 members. If that be true, it is a matter of very grave concern. I fail to see how it is possible for the naval staff to adequately conduct their work with such small numbers. During the War it was burned in upon us day by day and week by week that we were losing not only men's lives, but that we were spending an enormous amount of money simply and solely because the brain work and the staff work at the Admiralty and elsewhere was had. I hope that the lessons we learned by bitter experience at that time are not being thrown away and lost because there is at the present time an outcry for economy. That is the very worst form of economy.
With regard to the courses at Cambridge, there is nothing that I have seen introduced which gives me greater pleasure than the fact that naval officers are to be given a course at Cambridge University. The whole tendency of the Navy at the present time is not only to get more and more complicated from the technical and material point of view, but the actual questions become more and more diverse, both from the political and
personnel point of view. The education which is given at the University fulfils a want for any officer who is going to fill a higher command. If the officer takes up the higher command he has to meet competitions, to prepare papers for Members of this House, and perhaps he may even try to get into this House, in which case he would want an education of a character which would assist him in dealing certainly with some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: We have not had a University education.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I have not had a University education, and it is because I feel the want of it that I wish naval officers who have not had an opportunity to get a University education, to have it. It is a very great pity that the Board of Admiralty should have had to economise on that. I should like to know how much the First Lord is saving by what in my opinion is a very foolish economy.
Another question is the amount to be spent on research work. It is only 1 per cent. of the total Estimate. Is it right at a time when the whole system, from the technical point of view, and the whole idea and method of obtaining our military objective in the Service is changing, that we should only spend 1 per cent. of the total amount of the Estimate on research work?
I do not want to query the actual figures of that, but I think it must be essentially wrong, with such a quickly-changing technical position as we have to-day, to spend 1 per cent. of our total expenditure on research work. I should like to know whether experiments are being pressed on with anti-submarine work, and especially what arrangements are being made in training our gunner crews of ships in anti-aircraft work. Are we taking steps to make aerial targets which are in themselves self-contained aeroplanes, so that we may get some idea as to what defence a battleship can put up against present-day aerial attack?
I would like to stress the point, especially in regard to the naval staff at the Admiralty, as to whether they have a proper statistical branch and whether they investigate and record the scientific developments which are taking place, especially in America and Japan.

Mr. HOHLER: I should have taken my chance of getting in on some subsequent Vote were it not that there is one point I consider very pressing. Personally I view with alarm the Government reductions in the personnel of the Navy. I venture to think that in this matter the Admiralty could help us. I think the Admiralty have blundered, with good intentions. What has happened, I understand, is this They had asked, quite rightly, for volunteers in the Navy to retire, and pensions were offered. Undoubtedly the number fell short of what the Admiralty, in view of the need of the nation, thought necessary. That being the position, they found that they required a considerable reduction in engineer artificers, in cooks, in mechanicians, able seamen, and chief petty officers. Unfortunately they left this matter to be dealt with to the very last moment. I think it is less than a month ago since this matter received their notice, and the services of the men were terminated within a month. It seems to me that the blunder consisted in this, that the whole of these notices have fallen solely and entirely on the unfortunate men who happened to be in naval barracks in this country. None have been taken from any of the fleets at sea. Anything less in accordance with our sense of justice has never been known. I think the Admiralty must have over-looked this. I realise it is unfortunate that some men must go. In fairness at least he ought to be in equal competition with the other man, and they ought to have drawn lots. To break a man in his career merely because he happens to be in barracks is to my mind a very great injustice. These men recognise what justice is, and if the lot falls on them they will go. What happened was that they found volunteers did not come forward. No fresh appeal was made and no steps were taken to draw from the Navy, either on the basis of character or excellent service or the like, men without a blemish to remain and men with a blemish against them to go. Unfortunately the Admiralty hoped and did nothing, and ultimately, finding these Estimates were coming on and volunteers were not coming forward, as far as I can find out they sent down the Admiral in Charge of the Nore to Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth to see how many men they had in barracks, and to reduce the numbers and discharge a certain number of them. I
beg the First Lord to wait till the men come home from foreign service and see if we cannot get justice without doing injustice. I know one man who is finishing his training as a mechanician. He is a. chief petty officer named Keene. He actually got a substitute who was willing to go in his place, but he was told the man who was last on the list had to be taken. I believe this could be- got over. There is not a Member in the House who would not join with me in inviting the Admiralty and the Government to keep a few more men on for a time until these fleets come home and see if the thing cannot be adjusted. I am not satisfied that the numbers could not be got rid of by illness, death, or the like. I appeal to the Admiralty to do this.
Now may I point out what has been done in regard to these apprentices. I think there are about 70 who are being trained by the Admiralty at Keyham, and the boys who become engine room artificers are those who pass through the dockyards. If they pass their examinations they go into the service. The engineer has undoubtedly certain advantages which the other classes, who also pass through the dockyard as apprentices, do not get. These young fellows have selected that career for themselves because it was a better opening. Of course love of the navy preceded the whole thing. They had been through their shore training under indenture and they are drafted to the various ports in order to go through their sea training. It seems to me quite incredible but it is a fact that those young fellows who had been to all that expense and had directed their whole career in life are quietly told that they are discharged without indentures, and they are to have twenty sovereigns. £20 is nothing to these young fellows. They cannot apprentice themselves to any other trade. Even if they do their fathers could not afford to keen them. In the particular trade to which the Crown apprenticed them they got food and clothing. They have not even got indentures which would enable them to go out into the world and compete with the men outside. I understand that there is to be an increase in the Air Force, and I would suggest that you should take all these young fellows. They are splendid material, intelligent clever lads
of 17 or 18. Take them and continue their training. Do not scrap them in this way. They do not want £20. They want a profession. I beg the Admiralty to do something on the lines which I have suggested to try and save these men, and if any of them have been broken through no fault of their own the Admiralty should make every endeavour as between the men, whether at home or on foreign service to be impartial and fair to all concerned.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: There must be deep disappointment not only in this House, but in the country as a whole, at the position in which we are to-day, so far as the Navy is concerned. We were told during the War, and immediately after the War closed, that we should see a big reduction in both naval and military armaments, but instead of getting a big reduction in these directions we are still faced with a very heavy national bill for naval armaments, which must cause deep disappointment in the country. I know the difficulties with which the First Lord and those who have to face the problem are confronted. They had during the period of the War a very huge instrument which had been manufactured for carrying through that particular job, and during the past two years they have had, as the First Lord very properly explained to the House, a very delicate, difficult, and disagreeable task in reducing the number of men and the expenditure generally on the Navy. I am certain that if the First Lord in the years to come is prepared to continue that endeavour he will find, perhaps even on his own Benches, very strong support in that direction. As has been pointed out, however, our Naval policy must depend entirely on our foreign policy, and until our foreign policy is on a better and more secure plane than it is on at the present time—even we on this side of the House must recognise that those in charge of the Navy must take proper precautions for the safeguarding of the interests of our country.
I believe I am the only representative of a Royal Dockyard on this side of the House. Rosyth is my constituency, and consequently I have taken a very keen interest in to-day's discussion. I am pleased to see a change in the tone of the discussion as compared with that of 12 months ago when I was
not in the House. I read very carefully, however, the discussions that took place. At that time there was very great controversy over the question as to whether certain dockyards should be scrapped—on the ground that they were no longer necessary for our national defence. It was suggested at that time that Chatham, Sheerness and Rosyth could be got rid of quite easily. I am pleased that we have not had those sentiments expressed to-night. I want to identify myself with the view that instead of talking of handing our dockyards over to private enterprise, we are going to use our dockyards to a much greater extent in the future than we have done in the past.
The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who is not paying very much attention at the moment, complimented the First Lord on the manner in which he had carried through the reductions. I think he must have been referring to the reductions in the Navy. He certainly could not be referring to the reductions carried out in the dockyards, and I think, as the representative for Rosyth, that I have a right to complain about the treatment that Rosyth received last year during the period when reductions were taking place in the dockyards. Some 7,500 men had. to be got rid of in the dockyards of this country and something like 50 per cent. were discharged from Rosyth. There is one thing in the memorandum which has been issued by the First Lord that gives me a little concern. He tells us that recently a number of men have been taken on at the dockyards temporarily in order to relieve unemployment in the districts. I hope the First Lord is going seriously to consider the question before he carries through any further reductions at the dockyards, or there will be friction in getting rid of these temporary men. I wish to put this point of view to the First Lord, that he is not helping things any by dismissing men from the dockyards and simply putting them on the dole, because that is all that has happened in connection with the discharges that have taken place from dockyards in the past year.
The first Lord to-day is telling us of the millions that he proposes to save on the Navy during the next year, but there is one thing the First Lord has not told us in this House this afternoon, and that is
how much of that £125,000,000 of which the Minister of Labour told us the other evening is due to the fact that a very considerable number of men, who have been discharged both from the Navy and the dockyards, have had no resource but to go on the unemployment scheme and accept relief. I maintain that we are not saving money for the nation if we are merely dismissing men from the dockyards and the Navy and putting them on the unemployment list. It might have meant a bigger bill for the First Lord to present to this House, but it might have been an advantage to have had men both in the Navy and in the dockyards rather than walking the streets idle, as they have been doing during the past two years in particular.
There are other points I would like to refer to, but I may have an opportunity of raising them at a, later stage when the Votes are going through, but I wish to mention to the Committee that things have not been as fairly done as they might have been. I am justly entitled to complain as far as Rosyth Dockyard is concerned. It has been penalised to a greater extent than any dockyard in this country in the way of dismissals. The unfortunate thing, so far as Rosyth is concerned, is that the great bulk of men there are men who have been enticed from the southern dockyards. They had to get special privileges to entice them to face the climate of Scotland—inhospitable compared with that of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "They came with the greatest pleasure."] They did not, and many would go back to the southern dockyards if they had the opportunity. They are kept up there. The unfortunate thing is that the men who are there are contrasting things in the south with conditions in the north, and the cost of living in the south with the cost of living in the north. Many of them would willingly go back to the southern dockyards. Rosyth was unfairly treated last year, and I am entitled to complain about the manner in which it was treated.
As far as we on this side are concerned, we are not in favour simply of closing the dockyards and throwing men out of employment. That is not our policy. These dockyards are national property, and we are prepared to do everything we can to get them kept, not only in a proper
state of efficiency but, producing things that will be useful when war (if war is necessary) breaks out, or in peace. If the day should come when we have a real reduction in armaments, when the First Lord can come to this House and say that he can safely recommend the cutting down of the Navy Estimates by half so far as naval armaments are concerned, we want to be in a position to say to the First Lord: "If this is the position, you must adopt a new policy, you must take steps in the direction of converting your dockyards into something else than dockyards, or even yards for the building of naval armaments." We are entitled to ask the First Lord, when that times comes, to come to the House with a peace policy as well as a war policy—a policy that will carry the country through the next twelve months. When the time comes for these dockyards to be no longer required for Naval purposes—and you must remember that the reduction in the dockyards followed the Washington agreement—we looked upon that as being of no further use. We may be faced with that position again, and then we would he entitled to ask the First Lord to begin to visualise the time when we shall feel a great deal more security from the international point of view than we feel to-night. The Labour party does not want this country to take risks—at least, as far as I am concerned, I do not think we ought to take risks. We are perfectly entitled to keep our Navy or Army in a state necessary to meet, the enemies of our country. That is necessary. But while we say that, it is not the first thing we require. We require to say, first, that we should get a good peace with the other nations of the world. I f we fail, we do not blame the men on the Front Bench for coming forward with estimates such as we are presented with this evening. As a matter of fact, if we cannot get peace—if the other nations of the world make it impossible to get peace, we expect the men who are at the head of the Army and Navy to take such steps as are necessary to safeguard the interests of our country.

Viscountess ASTOR: There are many things to be spoken about, only after waiting for five hours eloquence is apt to grow cold. There is just one thing I
want to say. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. W. M. Watson) has taken a sane and sensible view, and I am sorry the hon. Member who spoke before him is not here now. When I hear hon. Members opposite describe us as lunatics or children I almost think we are in a lunatic asylum. Anyone would have thought to hear the hon. Member speak that the Navy had been the most aggressive force in the world, whereas every student knows that the British Navy has been the greatest civiliser the world has seen. There was talk about Christianity, but there would have been nothing to get missionaries round the world with if there had not been the Navy. I am glad hon. Members are out of the House for I should have enjoyed having a go at them. I hope the First Lord will explain to the opposite benches that one reason for the increases is that at last a great many men in the Navy are for the first time getting a living wage. I hope he will also make it plain why the two battleships were not built in the Royal dockyards. When I hear private interests being talked about I am perfectly certain that had nothing to do with the building of the ships not taking place in these dockyards.
I am very sorry that the First Lord has not put in a word about marriage allowances for officers. Last year I made a long speech on the subject, but I would again remind him that this is very pressing, and ask him just to give the officers' wives a chance in the same way as the men's wives. With regard to the Royal dockyards, I would like him to look up the system in France with regard to marriage allowances. If he would make an inquiry into that it would solve many dockyard problems. At the present moment the amounts paid are not, enough to provide a living wage for a man with four or five of a family.
I have one particular grievance; a Navy Debate would not be itself unless we had a grievance. There are a certain number of officers who rise from the ranks. It is almost impossible for these men to get retired pay and pension which can be compared with the retired pay and pension of the regular officers. These regular officers have not the same complaint, because they are young enough to qualify and get more work, a good many
of them in the House of Commons. That, however, is not the case with the ranker officers. It takes them years to get their Commissions, and then years more before they can get promotion. I make bold to press this, because in the past there was the same grievance among the Royal Marines, and if the Government saw fit to put it right in their case they ought to do the same for the Royal Navy. It really is very important, because some of us want to see the best men in every service get to the top, and I am sure the officers of the Navy want it as much as anyone else.
Another grievance is the exclusion of the schoolmaster branch of the Royal Marines from revised rates of pay. The First Lord gave me an answer to a question which was very unsatisfactory. Tinder the decisions of the Government upon the report of the Jerram-Halsey Committees in May, 1919, Royal Marine schoolmasters were placed on the same footing as naval schoolmasters. This decision has never been rescinded. But under an order made last year the conditions of promotion, pay, and pensions of Royal Navy schoolmasters were revised, but Royal Marine schoolmasters are excluded from the operation of this order. While the original orders remain in force, the exclusion of the Royal Marine schoolmasters from any improvement in the scale of pay officially allotted to them would appear to be not only unjustifiable, but a distinct breach of contract. I hope, therefore, that the First Lord will think of them. May I also say a word about warrant writers? As I understand it, it is difficult, if not impossible, for writers to become second accountant officers on ships. Will the Admiralty consider promoting writers passed for warrant rank, and appointing them to this post? There is another post which, I am told, might with advantage be opened to warrant writers, namely, that of captain's clerk on ships. Again, there is another position which, I am informed, might be opened to warrant writers, the very responsible position of being in custody of the main public chest. These are highly technical matters, but I know many of these warrant writers—you could not find better men in any rank of the Navy—and I hope the First Lord will consider their grievances. The hon.
Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) has put the case for the engine-room artificers so well that I will not say anything more on the subject.
I congratulate the First Lord on his very able review. When the Washington Conference came up there were not many dockyard Members who dared welcome its decisions. I do. I think it was one of the greatest steps that the world has ever known. However, I want to see the British Navy second to no navy in the world, and I am sure the First Lord and every Member of this House will fight hard for that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that if dockyard Members have to speak of grievances it is not in any hostile spirit, but to make the Navy even better than it is.

Mr. FOOT: I want to lay some emphasis on one particular grievance before the First Lord replies. It is the grievance to which the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler) drew attention. I have not the immediate association with a dockyard which the hon. Member has, but I can assure the hon. Member for the Devonport Division (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) and the hon. Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) that there has been no decision which the Admiralty has arrived at lately which has caused more indignation and disappointment, and, indeed, dismay, than the action of the Admiralty relating td the ratings of the Navy, particularly engine-room artificers. I ask the First Lord if there is not a possibility at this late hour of re-considering that decision. That notice is still pending. I believe in a good many cases it will operate at the end of the present month. There is a sheer injustice that that notice should have been given to men who happen simply to be serving in the home ships or home establishments. I know the answer was made by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty that it only applied to a few men. That is no answer. I submit that if a real injustice is done to one of these men, it is no answer to say that the injustice only applies to a few. Among the many letters I have received on the matter there is one in which a man says:
All the reductions are to he made from men in home depots, which means that the men who returned from abroad have got to go, whilst others who have been home for
twelve months and more and are just now enjoying themselves with the Atlantic Fleet escape.
That is an injustice. Surely the explanation made by the Minister a short time ago, that it was necessary to make these discharges quickly, is not a sufficient explanation. It would be far better if some delay took place, even a few months, if the reduction could be equitably applied to the whole fleet. A further reason for that delay is in this fact. There probably still remain on active service some of the artificers who volunteered to go under the terms of the scheme of last year, and probably these men are still willing, but as they are serving on sea-going ships it is not possible for them to carry out their willingness. We are faced with the position that there are men who want to go and cannot, and other men who do not want to go and must. That is the position as explained to me by those immediately concerned, and I submit it is another reason why these discharges should be delayed.
I think there must be something in the contention of the hon, and learned Member for Gillingham that this was, perhaps, a belated decision that had to be arrived at, perhaps, in the stress of preparing the estimates. A large proportion of the men are men with five years' service or less, and I ask the House to consider what is the prospect before these men who very often are the best products of our elementary schools. Some of them were trained at immense trouble by their parents. I know homes where the parents have worked. to the extremity of their efforts in order that they should provide for their children. A boy has gone into the service and has been led to believe all along that it was permanent service. Now he is to he put out, and although admirably fitted for his own work he is very largely unfitted for the work outside. He is at a hopeless disadvantage in competition with the engineer in other establishments. Very often these men have been prepared at great cost to the State; £475 per year in one establishment. During 4½ years of preparation a man costs the State for the completion of his apprenticeship something like £2,000. Some have been drafted from private establishments, but they have been able to get this skill mostly at a very considerable sacrifice to their parents. Nothing,
where I live, is sadder than the ease brought to me of a young man, the breadwinner of his family, who has been sent out of the Service with practically no prospects. The suggestion is made that 14 days' leave is to be allowed these men so that they may look for civil employment. It is a concession which is looked upon as little more than eyewash. They look upon it as something like a breach of faith. I do not say it is an actual breach of faith, and that the Admiralty is not entitled to get rid of these men, but if they broke their contract with the State they would have to pay a substantial sum. I submit that. the £20 which is being offered is inadequate; they should be paid the same sum they would have been required to pay to tile State if they had broken their contract with the Admiralty. I have had brought to my knowledge, and it has appeared in the correspondence columns of the paper which circulates in my part of the country, the disparity in the amounts paid to the officers and the men, though I do not say there is an unfair amount paid to the officers.
The hon. Member for the Devonport Division of Plymouth asked in this House what was the amount available for compensating officers and men discharged compulsorily or voluntarily from the Navy, and the numbers discharged. The reply was that the amount available for officers was £1,250,000, and for men £1,500,000, the numbers discharged being: officers 1,709; and men, 11,274. The total paid to the seventeen hundred officers was £845,000, and to the eleven thousand men was £1,082,000. There was a difference somewhat of this proportion 1494 to the officer and £96 to the man. In the reply it was also stated that the amount paid to the officers did not include retired pay. If you take the officer and the man of less than five years service, it is 1500 to the one and £20 to the other. It is a disparity which is thought to need some explanation among the men immediately concerned. I do not know if some suggestion can be made for the retaining of these men, even in scholastic employment. If anything could be done to relieve a few of these cases it would lessen the injustice. Economy is necessary but, I think, economy secured by the discharge of these men; by the breaking up of their careers, and some-
times by the breaking up of their homes, is economy which would be very dearly purchased. I hope it may be possible within these few weeks to have a rearrangement which will lessen the hardship in the district I represent.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: We have listened this afternoon to very many discussions of various topics connected with the Navy, and I would like to say I was delighted to hear the last hon. Member from the Labour Benches congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty for maintaining, so far as he can, a Navy that is sufficient to protect the interests of this country. It was exceedingly different to the speech that fell from the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold), in which he stated that so far as he was concerned he should not vote for any Estimates for the Army, Navy or Air Force. I suppose he was following the suggestion of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who indicated that the whole of the £123,000,000 required for the services of this country might be utilised in the cause of social reform. We on this side are quite as desirous as Members on the other side of the House to use as much money as possible for social reform, but we are strongly of opinion that it is necessary to maintain a Navy of sufficient strength to look after the trade routes of this country and keep us in a position in which we are able to feed the people of our country. I wonder whether hon. Members who are deploring the Navy, even as it is to be kept now on a reduced basis, ever take themselves back to the troublous time of 1914–18, and wonder what would have been the position now if the suggestions made from their benches had been carried out by the Government—what would have been the position of this country in regard to the trade routes during the War and the necessary food for the people.
1.0 P.M.
There are many points in the speeches delivered to-day, and I should like to have discussed some of them. At this late hour of the evening I do not, however, intend to do so. There is one I am particularly desirous of bringing before the Committee, and that is a breach of faith which has been made between one of the greatest corporations and institutions in the world and the Board of Admiralty. The First Lord when he was
making his speech this afternoon referred to the reduction of the Coastguard. He did not inform you that there was in existence at the present time a contract entered into between Lloyd's and the Admiralty—a fifty year contract entered into in July, 1903. The contract was to run for fifty years, roughly, from 4th June, 1901. Previously to 1903 the Corporation of Lloyd's were in the habit of keeping their own employés for collecting and distributing their maritime intelligence throughout this kingdom and, if I may say so, it was and is the greatest international means of disseminating maritime intelligence that has ever existed. The Admiralty between 1901 and 1903 applied to Lloyd's and asked if they would agree to some alteration and that they, the Admiralty, should take over the various stations that were owned by Lloyd's and some that were rented by Lloyd's. Lloyd's did not want to make this alteration, but they were particularly pressed by the Admiralty to do so, with the result that they eventually fell in with the suggestion of the Board of Admiralty. I find this in the Report here, which is rather an extraordinary document—the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee. This Committee was set up by Sir William Mitchell-Thomson. You would have thought that knowing this contract was in existence with the Corporation of Lloyd's, the first thing they could have done would be to approach Lloyd's and say: "Have you any suggestions to make Will you agree to this transfer from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade?" But not at all. I find in the Report which is referred to on page 8, which particularly refers to the matter, it says:
In addition the Admiralty has contractual obligations with Lloyd's which if continued would involve the manning of certain stations, and since this duty requires trained signallers it must presumably be discharged with a Navy Signalling Section. As however this would involve the retention of about 100 extra men for the most part at stations which are not otherwise required by the Admiralty and as the service is now of no value to the Navy as far as training of signallers is concerned owing to the changed requirements of modern times, we suggest the Admiralty should consider whether it would not be possible to come to some agreement with Lloyd's for the early termination of the contract.
The first intimation that Lloyd's received of this proposed alteration was
from the newspapers. They saw the report in the newspapers and they communicated with the Admiralty in September, 1922, drawing attention to the Report and saying they were surprised that this should be the first intimation they should have had, and asking, in the event of any other alteration being made or if it was confirmed, that the corporation should be communicated with. Strangely enough, no reply was ever received to that letter, and it was only when Lloyd's received intimation from some of their coastguardmen with the suggestion that their services would be terminated on the 31st of this month, that they got into communication again with the Admiralty, who replied, "Oh, yes, these alterations are going to be made, and the men that have hitherto been in the service of the Admiralty in the coastguard work and have been doing the work on behalf of the Corporation of Lloyd's have to be transferred to the Board of Trade." The connections between Lloyd's and the Board of Admiralty have always been of the most friendly nature, and the connections with the Board of Trade have been carried on in a like manner, but the Corporation of Lloyd's are not satisfied or, I should say, are quite dissatisfied, that these men should be transferred from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade. It requires men who have been trained for this work, thoroughly trained, in order that the information may be perfectly correct and transmitted correctly, and that reliance can be placed upon it. Naturally at various times there has been a certain amount of trouble for the men employed on this work, with the result that Lloyd's had communicated with the Admiralty. These men are under naval discipline, and it has been of great assistance in securing that proper control is exercised over them.
Now we are told that this alteration is to be made, and I venture to protest, on behalf of the Corporation of Lloyds, at the manner in which this suggested alteration is to he made. I say to the First Lord that if the Admiralty makes a contract it is incumbent upon the Admiralty to maintain the conditions of that contract. Neither the Admiralty nor any other Department have the right to transfer any contract that has been made from one Department to another without both parties to that contract agreeing.
We have all sorts of contracts made and cancelled, but we do not expect that condition of affairs between a Government Department and any important corporation such as the one to which he had referred. There are 23 stations—I will not give the names of them all—but there are three particularly out of the 23 which are to be continued by the Admiralty, the other 20 being transferred to the Board of Trade. The Admiralty are continuing seven stations themselves, and of 23 stations —one at Dover Pier, one at St. Anne's Head, and the other, I think, at Prawle. These remain in Admiralty service in order that the Admiralty information shall be of a reliable nature. The services of the coastguard-men are to he retained under their own control. The whole thing is this: It is a question of the transfer of another hundred of this coastguardmen. If the men necessary for the Admiralty work are retained surely a point could be stretched and another hundred of these men kept on to continue the contract which has still 28 years to run, especially as the Admiralty have admitted that they require trained men. The Committee were getting intimations from the coastguard in their service about the change, arid they asked what it meant. Then the Corporation received a notification from the Admiralty saying that "under the circumstances, while the men are being trained for the Department of the Board of Trade, we will agree to continue the men under the Admiralty for a further period of three months."
With all deference, I say the Admiralty has no power to make these alterations without due agreement with all the parties interested. I do not think I am divulging secrets when I say that the Admiralty would be quite willing if the services that have been carried out in the past by the coastguard on behalf of these stations, a great many of which are old stations on which they have spent£30,000 or £40,000 in constructing, should be continued as they have been up to the present time, as the men are required for signalling stations. I do not believe the Board of Trade want to do anything because they know they have not any Department properly arranged for the carrying out of this work. I think it is a ease where the Treasury see they are going to effect some small saving. There
cannot be much saving because it only affects 100 men, and I say that even if an agreement should be come to with the Corporation of Lloyd's and the Admiralty, the Corporation will not agree to the transfer of these stations to the Board of Trade. If it can be arranged, the whole amount would be so small that I think that on re-consideration the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman will think twice before they endeavour to cancel a contract that has been entered into and maintained in the spirit and manner in which the Corporation of Lloyd's have always dealt with the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. I hope. my right hon. Friend will very carefully consider this matter, because it is of the utmost importance that this work should be carried on by thoroughly competent men, men who have been trained in the work, and it is not work that can lightly be taken in hand.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: I rise especially for the purpose of emphasising what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Mr. Hohler). I am not a member for a dockyard town, but I happen to represent a very large number of engineers in dockyards, and a large number of the engine-room artificers who are being dismissed. I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider the position he has placed these men in. He will remember that when volunteers were asked for there was a number who consented to go, but unfortunately some of those who volunteered have not been allowed to go. I understand also that even some who volunteered were allowed to leave the home ports after they had volunteered. Under these circumstances it is only right that the men who are being compelled to retire should not be retired until those who actually volunteered should have the opportunity of leaving the Service. It means a very great deal to these young men. Sixty at least of the 175 now to go are Navy-trained apprentices. Only smart young men could win through the examination, and they were induced, or their parents were induced, to put them in the Navy through the alluring advertisements and circulars issued by the Navy. They were promised promotion, if they were attentive to their duties, to the position of engineer-lieutenant in the Navy. All that has been stopped.
I am not going to blame the Admiralty, I am rather inclined to blame the Treasury, which is responsible for so many schemes of false economy. Undoubtedly, pressure must have been brought on the Admiralty to get these retirements completed by the 31st of this month, and it has been the well-understood practice in the Navy that efficient men of good character were for all practical purposes assured of at least 12 years' service, with the option of rejoining for 22 years. I shall be told, of course, that there was a Clause in the agreement which gives the Admiralty the right, to discharge these men, but that has never been acted on in the past except, for misconduct or inefficiency. If you cannot do something to delay these retirements the Admiralty ought at least to treat these men as it expected to be treated by them. The men arc to get a gratuity of £20, but I understand it would cost some of them £75 to buy themselves out. If you are going to put them out you ought to he generous to them to the same extent. I am certain that when they read the statement that the terms are regarded as generous they will smile, because they at all events do not regard the terms as generous. They are under the impression that their contract has been broken and that they have been very badly treated. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman could very well delay the matter for a month or two and give these men who are really willing to retire an opportunity to retire, and so retain some of the men who are anxious to continue their career in the Navy.

Mr. HARRISON: We have had hon. Members speaking of the conditions in the dockyards. I believe most firmly that work is far better done by private enterprise. On this subject the Geddes Report says:
We have been impressed by a comparison of the high cost of labour in the dockyards in proportion to the value of the material consumed. The average of the home dockyards shows us that £3 is paid in wages for every £1 worth of material, whereas in private dockyards it is £1 10s. in wages for every £1 of material.
I believe also that wages in the Royal dockyards have been raised by 382 per cent. over pre-War times. It is clear from that figure that it is impossible that work can be done in Royal dockyards as cheaply as under private enterprise.
But take the broadest issue. Our present Budget is roughly £800,000,000. In that the Naval Estimates represent about one-thirteenth or one-fourteenth. I believe that this country will not tolerate an expenditure of £800,000,000 annually. Members on this side of the House should, therefore, realise that if we do not resolutely reduce our expenditure we shall sooner or later have a capital levy brought in by the other side which would be economic ruin.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that is going rather beyond the Question before the Committee.

Mr. HARRISON: I think that an effort should be made to attain a Budget of £700,000,000. Of a Budget of £700,000,000 there is already allocated £430,000,000 which would go in interest on debt and pensions. £170,000,000 is roughly equivalent to the pre-war Budget, and if you add another £100,000,000, for doing the same work at greater cost, you get £.700,000,000. If we are to attain that standard the Navy will have to suffer some slight further reduction. That is the branch of the public services which we feel is least susceptible to reduction. But the Geddes Report recommended a reduction of £21,000,000. Last year the First Lord reduced it by £4,000,000, and this year he proposes to reduce it by £6,800,000. If the Geddes Report is to be carried out, that leaves £10,000,000 to be reduced from the Navy Estimates, and that is apart from any savings due to the Washington Conference. I think the layman would be a fool who thought that he could give an adequate criticism of the Naval Estimates with regard to ships, crews and material—to do so would obviously require a lifetime of experience. The Geddes Committee did, however, say that a further £10,000,000 could be spared. I spent the best part of yesterday—seven hours in all—trying to collate the Geddes Report with the present Estimates. I found it extraordinarily difficult, but I did arrive at a few general conclusions, and I will try to bring them out on the detailed Estimates. I will now only allude to Vote 1. The Geddes Committee say that whenever a ship is in commission and a man is on shore for an Admiralty course, his place is always filled. They say that that is unnecessary. They say that on reserve ships there is a complement of one-fifth or one-tenth, and another fifth are kicking their heels in barracks. We
have had large numbers of men unemployed when these men could have been kept in employment as marine police, telephone operators, and in other ways. Another small point, the candle-end of economy, is the officer's servant. It does seem queer that in the Navy an officer's servant should not be taken on the staff as in the Army.
On the question of pay, the schoolmasters come in. I presume that schoolmasters were raised to something like the Burnham scale. Unfortunately in the Navy, and other Government employment, wages were fixed, without bonus, at a time when it was necessary to fix them extraordinarily high, and it may be that the salaries of these schoolmasters are higher now than circumstances warrant. The same thing, I think, would naturally apply to the pay of the sailors. But I feel strongly on that. If we had conscription it does riot much matter what a man is paid, that is his sacrifice for the sake of his country. But when you do not have conscription it is clearly right that you should pay your soldiers and sailors a really good wage to get good men. I think that pay in the past has been disgraceful. I am, therefore, not prepared to make any suggestions for decreasing the pay of the Navy. I will not detain the House further, for on further Estimates it would be more convenient if I raised the small points I have in mind and the suggestions I wish to make. I have merely mentioned these small ones as they turn on Vote 1.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I wish to put one question to the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the naval base at Singapore. In the Memorandum circulated by the First Lord he tells us that, owing to the terms of the Washington Convention, extension at Hong Kong is excluded and that it has been decided to proceed gradually with the base at Singapore. I understand that there is a large graving dock there 800 feet long, and when I come to the Estimate I find that a sum of £10,000,000 has been put down as the probable ultimate expenditure to be provided. cannot understand why such a huge sum should be put down, for I believe it would be feasible to enlarge the present docks there. I would he obliged if the First Lord could make a statement to the House. If I understand the Washington Agreement, it was
meant that we should cut down our liabilities and our developments in the East. I do not see how you can reconcile what seems contrary to that Agreement— that you should go away from Hong Kong and embark on this vast expenditure at Singapore.

Mr. AMERY: The discussion has ranged over a very wide field, and I am sure hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal adequately with all the points. I may have an opportunity of dealing with some of them on the separate Votes. I think I ought, perhaps, to say a few words about the main points raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), an omnibus Motion which included such topics as the failure of the present Government to fulfil its pledges of economy, the failure of the late Prime Minister to secure that we should live in a better world after the War and the desirability of securing some international Conference which would apply the principles of the Washington Treaty to every nation besides those who had taken part. Upon these points I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Colne Valley brushed aside the far-reaching economy we have had in Admiralty Votes as compared with recent years by insisting that the only standard of comparison was our pre-War expenditure. In using the pre-War standard for comparison you must make some allowance for the entirely different scale of costs and prices. If you make that allowance you will find that our present effective naval expenditure is only 60 per cent. of what it was in 1914–15. Even then 7½ millions of the difference is accounted for by the fact, to which the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has referred, that we are now paying a reasonable living wage to the men of the Naval Services, and I think that the party which has always stood for fair wages should be the last to complain about it. If I may give one other example, one in fact which he himself gave as to the expenditure of the different nations constituting the League of Nations. A document issued by the League showed that for the United Kingdom the percentage spent on defence has gone down enormously. Whereas in 1913–41.4 of the total gross Budget expenditure was spent on defence, in
1922–23 it was only 17.6 or 15.0 omitting War charges, but including the payment of pensions.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) is not in his place, but he went in for a meticulous criticism of our expenditure. One of his complaints was that we have not taken into account our drawings on stores and sales of ships and that if we did the Estimates would be increased by £2,800,000. If you take account of these things this year you must equally take it into account for last year. We are drawing £200,000 less for stores this year than last year and expect to make £580,000 less by the sale of ships. It is clear consequently that on these two items we are showing an additional saving of £780,000. I do not think I need labour these smaller points. The hon. Member for Greenock and the hon. Member who has just spoken took up the recommendations of the Geddes Committee as regards the personnel, etc. I only regret that the hon. Member, who spent seven hours reading the Geddes Report, did not devote an extra hour to the Admiralty Memorandum which I issued last, year on the Geddes Report, which dealt very fully with it, and I do not think I need labour that at this moment.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) made a feature in his speech of "What is this menace against which you are building? Where is it?" The answer I would give, and I gave it in my opening statement is this: Will you guarantee that there will be no menace in the next generation? If the Navy with all its ships, men, traditions could be bought at a shop ready for battle at a moment's notice we should certainly not keep one until the menace arose, but the Navy is a thing that takes generations to build up. You cannot let it down and recreate it in a moment, and we are bound to keep up a certain minimum standard of naval preparedness. As I think I have shown sufficiently, our scheme is based, not on the contemplation of any menace, but only keeping in existence a Navy sufficiently efficient to deal with such a menace gradually coming into existence after a period of years. The hon. Member spoke as if it was a question of the main object on this side of the House being to spend money on Dreadnoughts and the main object of the party opposite to find money
for widows' pensions. I venture to say that if we fail to spend an adequate amount on Dreadnoughts, we may find ourselves with far more widows than in the late War without being able to find pensions for them. The whole object of the Navy is to preserve peace. That is what it exists for, and that is what it has done throughout. The Navy in essentials, apart from minor wars, kept the peace for ns for a hundred years and more, and I trust it will keep it for us for as long a period again. The final part of the hon. Member's proposals was his suggestion that the question of extending the principles of the Washington Conference should be considered and that it should be extended to all other powers who are members of the League of Nations. That has been before the Council of the League of Nations which has suggested that the extension to all the non-signatory Powers in the League should be discussed by the League as soon as the April Congress at Santiago has been disposed of, I suppose this summer. I understand that the Temporary Mixed Commission on Reduction of Armaments has already recommended that when this further meeting takes place the Permanent Advisory Commission should review and consider the technical aspects of such further extension. We are not unsympathetic to this, but, all I would say is that, after all, the main problem of peace was secured when you fixed a definite limit to the great naval Powers. The smaller Powers are not disturbing the peace by their naval armaments. France and Italy were brought into the Washington Treaty by fixing limits far and above anything they would dream of building in the next 10 years. The Treaty puts no limitation or sacrifice upon them. Nothing of that nature is likely to affect the really big problems which, as far as the Navy is concerned, have been settled by the Washington Agreement. That Agreement, as I said earlier in the day, is, I believe, not only on the eve of general ratification, but is on the eve of being carried out by all the Powers concerned. We have done everything for the early carrying out of the Treaty at no small risk to ourselves by implementing the Treaty and thus giving an earnest of our good will and an example to the other Powers.
So much for the general points of the discussion. The hon. Member for Greenock asked certain questions about our oil fuel policy and about Singapore. That policy is not aimed at Japan or any Power. The object is simply to restore to the Navy in the oil fuel days and the days of big bulged ships that mobility which it enjoyed in the days of coal. We have to create at Singapore a graving dock capable of holding the modern big bulged ships, and we have to have workshops, stores, and all the apparatus which would make it an effective base if at any time we wished to restore the position such as existed before the German menace arose and a very large portion of our active fleet was in Far Eastern waters.

Sir G. COLLINS: Will we have an opportunity of discussing the Singapore base and will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking not to proceed with the work until the House of Commons has expressed its view on the matter

Mr. AMERY: It is hardly necessary to give that assurance, because the matter can always be discussed on Vote 10. The hon. Member seemed to think that Singapore would become out of date in the course of 10 years or more because of the changes in ships. I think he has forgotten that under the Washington Agreement there are to be no new ships of a different design built during the next 10 years, so there is nothing to be afraid of. We are spending in the present year £914,000 altogether on the oil fuel scheme, and I think a somewhat similar sum on the provision of oil.
The most important matter raised in the discussion was that raised by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) as to the necessity of discussing this problem of Singapore and all other problems of naval defence with the Dominions, in order to arrive at a united front on naval policy, and also to arrive at some principle under which we can each take a reasonably proportionate share of the burden of a world wide naval defence. I certainly feel feel that the sooner the conference meets the better, and the more fully and frankly we discuss these problems among ourselves the more likely we are to arrive at satisfactory results.
There is the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham
(Mr. Hohler) and other speakers—the difficulty with which we have been faced in the reduction of the last handful of men in the Navy, more particularly with regard to a small number of engine room apprentices. We had to get rid of some 12,000 men, or more. In fairness, and to get the most equitable system possible, we endeavoured to get the reductions made as long as we could from voluntary applications, and during the year a number of something like 11,600 or 11,700 applications came in, so that the great bulk was disposed of in the way most satisfactory and fair to the Service. But to do that inevitably meant carrying on the voluntary scheme for a considerable time. We did not get the last of the outlying returns until the Atlantic Fleet had gone out Hon. Members who suggest that there are many volunteers whom we could still have got are under a misapprehension. We were faced with the necessity of completing our reduction by the end of the financial year. We could only do that by making the last two reductions from the personnel of the home ports. These amounted to 800. I am glad to say that by a last effort at getting volunteers we have got another 250, and the figures are now reduced to something approaching 550, and I believe we can make arrangements with the Air Ministry to take over many of the skilled young engine-room apprentices who certainly deserve every possible consideration. We will try to see if we can in some way provide for them, at any rate, to complete their five years. It was suggested that we might take some of them on as schoolmasters. Subject to passing the necessary examination we should like to consider that The whole problem of this reduction has been faced with the greatest regret, and in the few weeks that remain we shall certainly try every expedient that will mitigate the hardship that still falls on the small number of discharges of men decided on at the last moment.
There are a number of smaller points on which I have been asked questions, but perhaps it would be fairer to the Committee if, instead of answering them now, I should do so on the several Votes as they come along. I trust the Committee will now give us Vote A, and the following Vote.

WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COAST GUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £14,055,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, That Sir Thomas Robinson be discharged from the Committee.

Ordered, That Mr. John Murray be added to the Committee.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

it being after Half-post Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening,Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERadjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before Two o'Clock a.m.